-
America’s Unjust Revolution: A Second Rejoinder to Mark Tooley
August 27, 2010 | 69 comments
-
America’s Unjust Revolution: A Rejoinder to Mark Tooley
August 18, 2010 | 77 comments
A Further Perspective
America’s Unjust Revolution: What British Tyranny?
A third and final response to Mark Tooley from Georgetown’s Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Christian Ethics.
Mark Tooley has probably done as well as anyone could in his attempt to reconcile the American Revolution with the “just war” tradition. He is, however, hammering a square peg into a round hole. His third blow is no more successful than his previous two.
He wonders (again) if I am opposed to all war. I reply (again) that I am not. The just war tradition is not pacifist; neither am I. Nor have I “reinvented” its criteria as a “rhetorical tool against virtually all force.” I reiterate that I adopt the standard criteria as articulated by orthodox sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Tooley says my case would be more persuasive if I could point to any conflict that met the criteria. I do not see why that should follow, but I am happy to oblige. It seems to me that the Allies in the Second World War were justified in resisting the aggression of the Nazis and the Japanese. (This is not, of course, to condone everything the Allies did, such as the nuclear incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a flagrant breach of the just war’s prohibition on targeting non-combatants.) However, the Allies’ resistance in that war was to attacks; the resistance of the colonial rebels was to a tax.
Tooley claims I try to reduce the War for Independence to a “trifling tax dispute, with all the British repressions simply the reasoned reaction to misbehaving colonists.” I never claimed the tax dispute was “trifling,” but the rebellion was (as Alvin Rabushka writes in his monumental study of taxation in colonial America) a “tax revolt, first and foremost.” My paper asks:
Did the imposition of a few, limited taxes on the wealthy colonies to help pay for their security constitute a just cause for armed insurrection?
Despite three bites of the cherry, Tooley has failed to provide a cogent answer. And his list of British “repressions,” such as the dissolution of colonial legislatures, is (as I pointed out in my last rejoinder) merely a list of understandable actions taken by the British to counter open rebellion. Tooley has, again, failed to explain why those actions were unjust, let alone tyrannical. Does the government not have as much a right to suppress unjust rebellion as citizens have a duty not to foment it?
He writes that I blame the rebels for “not passively accepting injustice.” Not so. I question whether they suffered any injustice at all, let alone tyranny. He also implies that I criticize the Revolution for not redressing all injustice and for not creating utopia. Again, not so. I criticize the Revolution because it was itself an injustice and would have remained so even had it created utopia. Whatever good it brought about was brought about by violent treason against legitimate, lawful government.
Tooley, rightly, recognizes important authorities in the just war tradition like St. Thomas Aquinas and notes that Aquinas allows for resistance to a tyrannical government unless greater harm is created thereby. But Tooley has failed to show either that the British were tyrannical or that overthrowing British rule (by initiating what turned into a world war) did not create greater harm. He simply assumes what he needs to prove. Where does Aquinas teach that colonists (or, indeed, non-colonists) may justly rebel if they are taxed without representation? (Where, indeed, does he teach that there is even a right to representation?) I may add that a number of the eminent scholars who have kindly read and endorsed my paper include leading authorities on St. Thomas. My paper follows the just war tradition according to Thomas, not Tooley.
Tooley repeats that Burke opposed the “suppression” of the colonists. I repeat that Burke, whatever he thought of the wisdom of taxing the colonists, voted to affirm Britain’s right to tax them. Tooley cites the British constitution, but according to that constitution the King in Parliament, the supreme law-making body, had the sovereign right to legislate for the colonies in all matters, including taxation.
Tooley criticizes the British for rejecting Congress’s “Olive Branch Petition” of July 1775 and for replying with a declaration of war. But war had already been waged by the rebels, at Lexington, Fort Ticonderoga, and Bunker Hill. Indeed, only weeks before Congress sent the Petition, it not only raised a Continental Army but authorized it to invade Canada. (So much, we may note, for the rebel war being “defensive.”) It is hardly surprising that its Petition met with a frosty British reception. Whether or not the British could have handled the crisis better (and we should remember that they too, before and after the war started in earnest, made peace overtures which were rebuffed) has little bearing on the crucial moral question: whether the rebels were justified in precipitating that crisis.
A hypothetical may help to illustrate the patent injustice of the Revolution.
Imagine that thousands of American citizens, wanting to leave the mainland in search of a better life and to populate a large, uninhabited island a thousand miles off the west coast of the U.S., petition the U.S. Government to live on the island under U.S. jurisdiction, ruled by a Federal Governor. The Government agrees.
No sooner have the emigrants planted the Stars and Stripes on the island than they strike gold, build up a healthy trade with the mainland, and become hugely wealthy. However, the Japanese, wanting to expand their sphere of influence and enrich their coffers, invade the island. The U.S. successfully defends the island in a major, protracted war which costs many American lives and drains the U.S. Treasury.
To offset the massive cost of the war and of guaranteeing the island’s security (a cost which has produced large tax hikes for Americans on the mainland), the U.S. Government imposes a modest tax on coffee imported by the islanders. Some islanders refuse to pay, claiming that as they have no right to vote for members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal tax demand is unwarranted. They seize a U.S.-registered ship in the island’s port and jettison its cargo of coffee into the sea. They also assault IRS officials, riot, and torch the Governor’s mansion.
When a detachment of U.S. Marines is sent to the island to restore order, some islanders confront them with loaded rifles and with cannon stolen from the local Federal Armory. Shots are exchanged. The Marines, outnumbered, retreat under withering fire. Many Marines are killed. The survivors reach the relative safety of the island’s capital, which is promptly besieged by the rebel islanders.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (112) | Leave a comment
More Articles by John Keown
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/13/americas-unjust-revolution-wha
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Eric| 9.13.10 @ 6:26AM
Your hypothetical fails to capture any of the fundamentals.
Here's the real hypothetical: A bullying imperial American King forces colonists to house soldiers among themselves, and suffer rape, theft, and other crimes committed by the soldiers. The soldiers are there not to protect the colonists, but to oppress them. But by miraculous confluence of historical intellectual currents, an entire class of local leaders is beginning to grasp a future way of government that by contrast exposes the old imperialism for what it is. They try desperately to get the King bully to see the future, but he refuses. They fight for a future for freedom that ends up being emulated and blessing the whole world, and saving it more than once from facist domination.
Had the rebels in your hypothetical rebelled against an unjust backward America with an such imperialist King, then they would have been justified. As it is your hypothetical fails to compare on any fundamental.
We country people are growing tired of bearing on our over-taxed backs a useless class of pampered, perked, tax-paid government-class drones who crush our livelihood and produce "thinking" that is worse than useless, and whose only idea is to undermine the only really good idea in the last couuple of centuries.
Texas Mom 2010| 9.13.10 @ 12:41PM
Amen. I understand the citizens in England had representatives in the House of Commons (I don't count the House of Lords) but the colonists had no such repesentation. England also needed to raise money from the colonists not just for the defense of the colony but for other war efforts as well. The colonists were obviously capable of defending themselves so why should they pay for English and Hessian soldiers to be lodged in our homes?
Paul D| 9.13.10 @ 2:25PM
Mr. Keown writes:
"(Where, indeed, does he teach that there is even a right to representation?)"
In 1776, all British citizens residing in England had a right to representation in Parliament. Thus they had a say (throught their representatives) in whether they could be taxed or not.
The colonists (as British citizens) petitioned the King for the same rights. The King said no. It doesn't take much of jump in one's thinking to go from a second class citizen being denied the rights of your fellow countrymen, to thinking of oneself as a completely INDEPENDENT NON-citizen.
Had King George simply granted the petitions, there never would have been a Revolution. The right to representation, NOT freedom from taxes, justified the declaration of independence.
D. Singh| 9.14.10 @ 3:45AM
Mr Paul D
Brilliant!
Jacj Bauer| 9.14.10 @ 5:23AM
"In 1776, all British citizens residing in England had a right to representation in Parliament."
NOT TRUE.
Sorry, but that's just a fact.
Please check the Great Reform Act of 1832, which in itself only allowed a total of one out of six adult males to vote, in a population of some 14 million.
And that was a reform!!
So enough of this rubbish that the British "subjects" had the right to vote. It's not true
Alan Brooks| 9.13.10 @ 10:31PM
"Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Christian Ethics?"
Rose Kennedy? funny, I never thought of her as being a figure of reverence. What next? Skakel School of Criminology?
Anthony Antetomaso| 9.16.10 @ 3:24AM
"Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Christian Ethics"
What a hoot! Rose had her will probated out of Florida when she kicked off so her estate wouldn't have to pay all those nasty taxes her communist son & grandchildren kept voting "YES" on all their worthless lives.
But the Kennedy's had no problem naming a chunk of the real estate bought with Big Dig money the Rose Kennedy Greenway that us working morons had to kick in to.
Some ethics!
D. Singh| 9.14.10 @ 3:34AM
Mr Eric
Outstanding!
dlb| 9.13.10 @ 7:07AM
Professor Keown writes as if America had invaded England. If the British had simply let us go our own way, there would have been no Revolutionary War.
Alan Brooks| 9.13.10 @ 10:38PM
Professor Tweedyfoofer should devote his energies and undeniable talent to the current war, not this dead issue of 235 years past.
BTW, a professor is an inferior version of a priest. You'd get more from a good seminarian that a careerist po'fessor defending a centuries old lost cause;
or a professor of French Lesbian Tapdancing History who gets a better deal than even politicians & lawyers.
Old Soldier| 9.13.10 @ 7:15AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
I wonder if Mr. Keown would call other colonial rebellions "unjust"? Was Simon Bolivar a war criminal?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.13.10 @ 7:56AM
You have one too many brain cells and it's run amok.
Margie| 9.13.10 @ 12:50PM
Ha!!!
Louis Jenkins| 9.13.10 @ 8:10AM
Mr. Keown:
An interesting read but you lost me with
"This is not, of course, to condone everything the Allies did, such as the nuclear incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a flagrant breach of the just war's prohibition on targeting non-combatants."
Let's see, the Japanese targeted everyone, civilians included. If you have any questions look up the civilain prisoner of war camps in the Philpines, or any other instance. How about the futile attempt to bomb the west coast by Japan? We know the accountability of causalties if mainland Japan had been invaded. I think the Just War issue has run its course and it's time to move on to more fertile issues.
Paul D| 9.13.10 @ 2:12PM
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. The civilian deaths were collateral damage.
Hiroshima had 60,000 troops stationed in the city with Japans's 5th Army headquarters. Many were killed in the blast, although the majority of personnel killed were civilians. Fortunately, the Japanese had already evacuated many of the local children before the blast.
Nagasaki was an industrial site manufacturing large amounts of war material. Bombing it with one large bomb was no different than using hundreds of bombers with lots of little bombs. Of course the Japanese quickly realized that if we could do this with one bomb, the game was up.
And so they quickly surrendered, thus saving the lives of countless Japanese civlians and American soldiers who would have died in the invasion.
Therefore I fail to see how these atomic bombings were a "flagrant breach of the just war's prohibition on targeting non-combatants." And I am not the only one posting here who can point out the entire nation of Japan was at war with us.
Anthony Antetomaso| 9.16.10 @ 3:28AM
I wonder if Japan's rape of Nanking was a "flagrant breach of the just war's prohibition on targeting non-combatants."
Andrew B| 9.13.10 @ 8:44AM
I think the truth lies somewhere between the extremes of the two correspondents. Britain was not "tyrannical" in comparison with most 18th century colonial powers, and America was not "enslaved" in any real way.
The break between Britain and America was, however, entirely right and necessary. The American people had evolved into something new and different from what they had been, and Britain refused to acknowledge it. I compare the situation to a teenager growing restless under his parents' roof. They may not be "tyrannical", but he will chafe under their rules. Eventually, it is just, right and proper for him to separate himself from even the most loving home.
It would have been lovely for Britain and America to separate amicably (as Canada did), but it was not going to happen. Americans--for better or worse--are not Canadians.
The American Revolution was the painful recognition of a fact. Calling it "just" or "unjust" won't change that fact, nor its necessity.
Austin Scott| 9.13.10 @ 10:36AM
Many Canadians are indeed "Americans" in the narrow sense of being descended from British settlers in the 13 colonies. United Empire Loyalists (40,000 or more) flooded into the northern colonies after the Revolution, and their descendants are still honored there. The current American identity was constructed to exclude them and the many Tories who remained in the new United States. And, of course, many Americans were quite recently Canadians, having headed south to settle here.
How an American is to be defined remains problematic. A good argument can be made that it necessitates acceptance of a set of Revolutionary principles. In that case, however, a very large proportion of U.S. citizens are not, in fact, "American."
James Pawlak | 9.13.10 @ 9:01AM
Those unhappy with the US Revolution are welcome to move to the UK. They should be prepared to now be unable to defend themselves against criminal attacks AND are likely to be required to submit to Islam in the near future.
UP THE REPUBLIC!
Eric Catman| 9.13.10 @ 9:06AM
This is what happens when you sit for hours in a small room (at the end of a long hallway) with a skinny window that overlooks the back of the student center where the only thing to watch are dumpsters being emptied and the occasional stray dog sniffing for friends and lifting his leg on the "Faculty Parking" sign. Your mind starts to go.
Tim*| 9.13.10 @ 9:35AM
Next comes sneakin' tugs of old Bushmills from a pocket flask in the faculty dining room , then a steady decline in personal hygiene , English teeth syndrome and concerns about a falloff in coed groupies .
Eric Cartman| 9.13.10 @ 10:22AM
My God! You've seen crazy old Professor Keown?! Wish him well for me, the poor bastard! He was once a good man.
Texas Mom 2010| 9.13.10 @ 12:44PM
snorted diet coke out my nose but still worth it! you forgot only talking with like-minded 'intellectuals'!
Booger| 9.13.10 @ 9:21AM
If you want a real thought experiment in what would happen had the colonies allowed the crown to impose a the (illegal) taxes in question and allowed the disarmament of colonists required along with them, take a look at Ireland in the 1840s. Death by disease and starvation is still death, even though no war was declared. Also, pray tell, what might have happened if the colonists had declined to pay the (illegal) taxes in question? Would the British crown have agreed to resolve the dispute without resort to force? If not, then your argument dissolves to nonsense.
J.C.Eaton| 9.13.10 @ 9:25AM
OK Mr. Keown, what's next? How many angels can stand on the business end of a pin? With all due respect, these kinds of mental masturbation are fun for awhile[like passing time on flights to Vegas] but enough already. It might be amusing to get smashed discussing the Constitutionality of seccession too but ultimately pointless. Lincoln may have been wrong but the Army of the Potomac proved him "right." What do you want us to do? Give the place back to Buckingham Palace and say we're sorry?You'd do better to start cleaning up what has become an affront to Catholicism, namely Georgetown University.
Le Cracquere| 9.13.10 @ 9:32AM
"'Shut up,' he explained." --Ring Lardner
Patrick| 9.13.10 @ 3:05PM
Wait, Georgetown is Catholic!?
Ooooh...Jesuit. That explains it all.
Can the Pope please banish them to Russia again?
Nicolas Ziener/France| 9.15.10 @ 1:37PM
To J.C. Eaton, I think you found the appropriate qualification for all this, this is really mental masturbation, ridiculous .... I mean there's absolutely no point for this debate, no interest at all, boring to death and leading nowhere ....
Tim*| 9.13.10 @ 9:38AM
Away with ya , ya Orange Bastard .
Up The Revolution !
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.10 @ 9:41AM
Mr. Keown,
I'm sorry sir. You are simply ignorant.
In addition, you are "arrogantly ignorant". (The worst unjust war-sin to my knowledge.)
England could have repented...at any time over a number of years. They did not...so we threw their arrogant asses out of our continent.
CASE CLOSED! (music of the old police show with Joe Friday).
A. C. Santore| 9.13.10 @ 9:50AM
1. Professor Keown needs to read The Declaration of Indepenence, The Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Just for starters.
2. Ms. Michelle Obama wants History rewritten, so she would be deliriously ecstatic with Professor Keown's denigration of American history and principles.
3. Pah!
Lib Destroyer| 9.13.10 @ 10:06AM
I think Professor Keown is educated beyond his intelligence.
Texas Mom 2010| 9.13.10 @ 12:46PM
AMEN!
Patrick| 9.13.10 @ 3:07PM
I have also heard the term "educated to imbecility".
Jhonsons Tea| 10.19.10 @ 12:45PM
You sir, are a flaming teabag.
Melvin| 9.13.10 @ 10:23AM
To have a man or a group of men take up arms and march directly into a hail of cannon and musket-fire for they're cause, should be enough justification without having succeeding generations second guess they're decision.
Of all the men and women who were made up of many nationalities and races of people to take on the best equipped and trained that the England & Germany had to offer is in-itself a major, major statement.
Common sense dictates that for a man or a woman to pickup a musket and go out and engage the best trained army in the world, there has to be a very strong desire to create something that is better than what the British Crown was offering it's subjects.
After the defeat of the English, our Republic began to form a representative form of government that was 2nd to none and even to this day with all the speed-bumps and glitches that have befallen this Country we continue that legacy that those who died in the Revolutionary War strove and died to have created.
Is this Country perfect? No it is not. Should we strive for perfection? No, we should not, because if your perfect there is no desire to continually improve, and that is what as Americans we should strive to foster, perpetuate, and improve upon a very good form of governance.
Besides there is nothing in this world that is, "just"only earned, and the blood that was shed by those who desired to create a better form of governance is enough justification for this man.
james wilson| 9.13.10 @ 10:44AM
Mr. Keown, do not take a vote of eighty year old Japanese women in support of your position on ending the Japanese war. They were all trained in suicidal attacks in preparation of the invasion, and grateful for the bomb. Nothing else could relieve Japanese pride of its obligations.
As Paul Johnson would tell you, Americans had always run their lives quite independently of British rule and requirements except by a wink and a nod. When the British sought to change this evolution they precipitated a war.
It may easily be seen that there was no future with Britian only by looking at the future as it played out for Britian. The future was American.
P.Smith| 9.13.10 @ 10:51AM
Mr Keown,
When I read your statement: "This is not, of course, to condone everything the Allies did, such as the nuclear incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a flagrant breach of the just war's prohibition on targeting non-combatants.", I decided that you were even a bigger imbecile than what I previously suspected.
Several years ago I saw an interview performed a Katie Couric type reporter on some morning pseudo news show on an anniversary of the bomb being dropped on Japan with an older Japanese woman who had been a resident of Nagasaki (I think it was Nagasaki, but it could have been Hiroshima) as a child when it had been “incinerated” (your word) by the Americans. She had extensive scarring on her face from the radiation burns, though from the looks of things the intervening years had mitigated the scarring somewhat. Sometime after WWII she apparently became an U.S. citizen and was a resident of New York City. The interviewer asked this older lady some general questions about what happened when Nagasaki was bombed and then asked if the she thought the Americans were wrong to bomb Nagasaki with such a weapon. To the dismay of the journalist, if you can call her that, the old woman said something like, no she wasn’t mad, that in fact the Americans did the right thing, because the Japanese citizens, along with the children, were trained to fight to the death when the inevitable invasion occurred, and that many lives were saved by dropping the bomb, including her own,. I seem to remember that she said that children, including she herself, had sharpened bamboo or wooden poles prepared ahead of time to use as weapons, but I may be mistaken.
Several years ago I saw an interview performed a Katie Couric type reporter on some morning pseudo news show on an anniversary of the bomb being dropped on Japan with an older Japanese woman who had been a resident of Nagasaki (I think it was Nagasaki, but it could have been Hiroshima) as a child when it had been “incinerated” (your word) by the Americans. She had extensive scarring on her face from the radiation burns, though from the looks of things the intervening years had mitigated the scarring somewhat. Sometime after WWII she apparently became an U.S. citizen and was a resident of New York City. The interviewer asked this older lady some general questions about what happened when Nagasaki was bombed and then asked if the she thought the Americans were wrong to bomb Nagasaki with such a weapon. To the dismay of the journalist, if you can call her that, the old woman said something like, no she wasn’t mad, that in fact the Americans did the right thing, because the Japanese citizens, along with the children, were trained to fight to the death when the inevitable invasion occurred, and that many lives were saved by dropping the bomb, including her own,. I seem to remember that she said that children, including she herself, had sharpened bamboo or wooden poles prepared ahead of time to use as weapons, but I may be mistaken.
John II| 9.13.10 @ 11:01AM
Some good responses on the thread so far, but allow me to cut to the chase.
My favorite parts of Professor Keown's continuing exercise in retrospective moral smugness are the terms "Kennedy Center of Ethics" (named after the materfamilias of perhaps the most morally challenged family in American political history) and "Georgetown University" (designating a secularized Jesuit institution committed, so to speak, to the political correctitude of the beltway: hostility to Catholic orthodoxy and friendliness to Islamic jihad.)
Keynote: America sucks.
Fallacy| 9.13.10 @ 12:29PM
ad ho·mi·nem [ad hom-uh-nuhm ‐nem, ahd-]
–adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Tim*| 9.13.10 @ 1:15PM
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing "to [the point of] nausea".
As in , " Brit LawBoy Apologist Keown beats a dead horse argument ad nauseum ."
John II| 9.13.10 @ 6:58PM
"1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason."
In fact, the appeal to prejudice is called petitio principii, the appeal to emotions is called ad misericordiam, and the appeal to special interests is called ad populum.
"2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."
Technically, this appeal is known as ad personam, not ad hominem. In the strict sense of ad hominem (often mistakenly used to mean ad personam), all arguments reduce finally to the
argument ad hominem (and pronounced in four syllables), inasmuch as the premises of an argument are determined by the experience and character of the one making the argument-- frequently revealed not only in the manner of articulation but also in the choice of a dominant mode of appeal in the argument. In other words, the way a man makes his argument is generally a more reliable index of his intent than is the content of his argument.
The response of "Fallacy," therefore is every bit as ill-informed as it is lazy and smug. Rather like the argument of Professor Keown.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Tim*| 9.13.10 @ 7:13PM
ad in·fi·ni·tum
adv or adj \ˌad-ˌin-fə-ˈnī-təm also ˌäd-\
Definition of AD INFINITUM
: without end or limit
Origin of AD INFINITUM
Latin
These ObamaBoy Trolls defend The Brit Barrister's ad nauseam crybabyin' over The American Rebels Openin' a Can of Whup Ass on The King's Army " ad infinitum " .
John II| 9.13.10 @ 7:42PM
I reckon.
Tim*| 9.13.10 @ 7:57PM
Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur
John II| 9.13.10 @ 8:32PM
Sed quare non? Si autem vero eloqueris, non interest qua lingua uteris. Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum.
I plumb reckon.
Albert| 9.13.10 @ 11:21AM
I am wondering why we are engaged in this exercise. Why debate the US Revolution against the British Crown? It's old news. It's done and over. That was SO yesterday. Why not debate an issue closer to today's headlines? Like whether Cassius and Brutus were justified in assassinating Caius Julius Caesar? Were they as honorable and altruistic as their legends claim? Did they act to preserve the Republic? Or to salvage their reputations? Were the best interests of Rome at the core of their deed? And if so, what of the result? Unintended consequences?
Patrick| 9.13.10 @ 3:24PM
More importantly, was Julius Caesar justified in crossing the Rubicon?
1. Pompey sought dictatorship, possibly perennial.
2. Caesar was denied his consulship in absentia, and was to be removed from military commission. All recourse had been exhausted.
3. Caesar was viewed as the most competent general, with the most esteemed legion.
4. Caesar's own dictatorship was less damaging than the sole consulship of Pompey, who was catering to the Optimates, a corrupt oligarchy too busy bickering with one another than administering to the Republic.
LarryK| 9.13.10 @ 11:50AM
"John Keown is Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Christian Ethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics of Georgetown University."
The Kennedy Institute of Ethics? Wow, can you say "oxymoron"?
PolishKnight| 9.13.10 @ 11:54AM
Spectator has some wonderful, thoughtful articles. Indeed, I have long wondered at how the American Revolution which was based upon limited government and liberty morphed into the statist society we have today. It wasn't merely due to a lack of foresight by the founding fathers.
For starters, the civil war was a suppression of states rights based upon a very noble principle: the elimination of slavery. However, this statist suppression was technically illegal (the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights reserved the right to the states to secede) and didn't really solve the problem (racism against blacks continued for almost a century afterward.)
In addition, the civil war undermined the precedent for the American revolution. If the South couldn't leave because the Federal goverment had the right to keep them, how could they celebrate Independence Day and the Revolution? After all, the colonists of the time were engaging in their own civil rights abuses of the time and it was the British who were more respectful of Native American rights.
Hmmm, this puts George the Third on the same moral plateau as... Abraham Lincoln!
That said, I think the Revolutionary War was just. Legal residents of an area should have the right to secede from a government if they find the conditions unjust and not necessarily excessively so. This should include, for example, splitting up Iraq (which is a British hodgepodge to begin with), allow Hawaii to go off on it's own if they like, give Armenian in Turkey independance, etc. Why not? Why not allow a group of people in a region to decide their own government if they see fit?
That brings us to conflicts such as Czechnia, Northern Ireland, sections of California or soon to be Islamic sections of France. Should openly illegal aliens be allowed to invade and then demand secession? Certainly, the opposite case is valid: Governments have a right, and even obligation, to expel invaders back to their countries of origin and deny them voting rights and birth citizenship.
GW| 9.13.10 @ 4:55PM
So it was legal for the South to attack Fort Sumter? Remember, it was the Confederacy that started the war, before Lincoln was president. Either Lincoln defends the sovereign government of the United States or he allows the republic to break apart. He made the correct decision.
PolishKnight| 9.13.10 @ 10:45PM
Was it legal for rebels dressed as Indians to dump tea into Boston Harbor? And what do you think the Declaration of Independence was?
Confederacy: A rebellion of states' rights slave owners.
American Revolution: A rebellion of states' rights slave owners.
INDEED| 9.14.10 @ 8:09AM
Yep
Remember...| 9.13.10 @ 11:55AM
Twas not while England's sword unsheathed
Put half a world to flight,
Nor while their new-built cities breathed
Secure behind her might;
Not while she poured from Pole to Line
Treasure and ships and men--
These worshippers at Freedoms shrine
They did not quit her then!
Not till their foes were driven forth
By England o'er the main--
Not till the Frenchman from the North
Had gone with shattered Spain;
Not till the clean-swept oceans showed
No hostile flag unrolled,
Did they remember what they owed
To Freedom--and were bold!
Charlie Collier| 9.13.10 @ 11:58AM
I'm grateful for Professor Keown's willingness to take the just-war tradition seriously enough to engage in this argument. As the comments make abundantly clear, the "justice" of American violence is more a matter of faith than argument. I know from experience that Mr. Tooley will no more acknowledge the blatant injustices of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not to mention the fire bombing of Tokyo) than he will the injustice of the American Revolution. He's trying to believe in order that he might understand, only I fear the object of his belief is more America than God.
agathis| 9.13.10 @ 1:15PM
Of course Tooley won't admit that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "blatant" in their injustice. He doesn't believe them to be so. In fact, most American's would agree with Tooley on that. Your objection seems to be that Tooley disagrees with you. And for doing so, you insinuate that his opinion is based in secular faith rather than religious faith. You'll forgive me for not taking you seriously, since you could only possibly make such a suggestion by being a mind reader.
Evanston2| 9.13.10 @ 2:34PM
Despite its extremely serious subject matter, this discussion has become downright silly. First off, it'd be good if Prof. Keown reviewed the battles and wars fought by Israel to see which fit the Roman Catholic "Just War" criteria. Did the Jews really need to revolt against the Egyptians? And weren't God's actions to free them the equivalent of nuking the Egyptian civilian population? What about the invasion of the Promised Land? Prof. Keown's article refers to "orthodox sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church." The source of orthodoxy is the Bible. Jesus did not say much directly about war but He did speak often about justice. If we are to adopt God's view of war, starting with His view about justice would be appropriate. Government should serve the people, and when it fails to do so it deserves to fall (see the split of the Jews in to two kingdoms, and their fall).
Second, I agree with Charlie Collier that Prof. Keown's arguments are valuable but disagree with Collier's assertion that "...the 'justice' of American violence is more a matter of faith than argument." Rather, the "justice" of American violence is more a matter of results. What seems brutal on a tactical level (e.g., nuking a city) can save lives (e.g., Japanese surrender) on a strategic level. It only takes one side to start a war, but to finish it is a matter of the will. Both sides need to say "enough." American tactics were often dictated by the will of the Japanese. Simply put, their character (and that of the Germans) brought forth the Biblical truth 'sow the wind, reap the whirlwind' (Hos 8:7).
Overall, the devotion of Prof. Keown and Mr. Collier to "Just" war and "justice" is touching...so how do they explain the fact that the same institution the produced Just War criteria is the dominant religion in crappy places where there is No Justice? I say this as a former Roman Catholic and retired Marine Corps officer. Ever since Constantine, both the Eastern and Roman churches tied themselves to the state and were co-opted. While the core Truth of God's love and payment for His people can be found, it has been supplanted by obedience to men in robes and their so-called wisdom. Do I need the blessing of "The Church" to seek justice, or to go to war? This whole matter is a temporal power play by the priests, and they will answer for it to The Judge of Mankind.
TR| 9.13.10 @ 12:01PM
As is so often noted, the individuals that choose to become college professors over actual real-life work experience, the individuals that choose a soft, easy life of warping mushy brained youth just emerging from adolescence into their utopian vision of what SHOULD be thought, who love being worshipped by those said youth, prove time and time again that they have WAY too much time on their hands rewriting history and presenting it as defacto truth.
"Professor" Keown, were you present in the mid-late 18th century? Did you live through what those people did? You, with your cushy ivory tower "job" claim to be better able to determine the justness of revolution than the immensely brilliant Thomas Jefferson? Than the genius Benjamin Franklin? I recommend, you fake intellectual, that you study REAL history of the brave men who affixed their signatures to the Declaration of Independence. They did not take their actions lightly.
As to your transparently absurd position on the "incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" once again I ask, did you live through the horror that was WWII? We did not start the war, but we sure fininshed it, and I am grateful to the brave men that did. War is Hell, sir, and our primary mission was to WIN. I assume you would prefer to be speaking Japanese or German today.
Your article is bullcrap, and you and your ilk are why we are in the place we are today in relation to our current enemy, the immoral islamic fascists who would destroy us at every opportunity. Our lilylivered leaders refuse to be bold like our revolutionary heroes and our heroes of WWII.
When the sh** hits the fan soon, I know you will be the first to surrender.
PolishKnight| 9.13.10 @ 12:21PM
It appears that this topic is extending beyond the American Revolution since Hiroshima and Nagasaki came up.
War is "hell", of course, but as the trial of Nuremburg supposedly claimed, even war should be conducted with a moral conscience. It is likely that the end of the war with Japan could have been negotiated without the use of the atom bomb. By using the weapon, the USA gave up a significant moral advantage. Imagine... for a moment... what could have been if Truman had said that the Emperor would have been allowed to continue on as a figurehead and a surrender negotiated as few weeks later without the use of the bomb. Moving forward, the USA would be known as the country that developed the weapon but... didn't use it. It would have taken a lot of wind out of the USSR's propoganda sails. In addition, by negotiating the end of the war quietly, the USSR wouldn't have been able to "declare" war on Japan and then get the benefit of a "victory".
I didn't live through the horror of WWII, but my close relatives did and they were BETRAYED by FDR at Malta to a butcher far worse than the Japanese. Regarding us speaking Japanese. Highly unlikely. While a valuable ally of Germany, Japan wasn't going to invade the USA especially after Germany had surrendered. We'd have, at worst, a situation similar to North Korea and Vietnam.
agathis| 9.13.10 @ 1:19PM
The problem with this argument is that it is primarily informed by information only available after the fact. The argument seems to be that we could have saved a lot of lives by not using the bomb. It's a highly debatable point even now, let alone *before* the bomb was used. The resulting argument seems to be that we should have let a lot more innocent people die (in an invasion, for instance, since Japan was unlikely to surrender at all, and didn't even surrender after the first atomic bomb) in order to save face morally. I'd suggest that the idea that we kill more people to keep the moral high ground is itself morally repugnant.
PolishKnight| 9.13.10 @ 10:47PM
Agathis, there was no such risk. If the USA had detonated a demonstration bomb, they still would have had the option to set off another one later. Or even take an extra month or two to negotiate.
Nobody is saying that Truman had to vow to never use the bomb, ever.
CoastieCPO| 9.13.10 @ 1:35PM
Absolute stupidity. The surrender itself was no forgone conclusion. The Japanese generals tried to take the emporer prisoner and Japanese officers blew themselves up in protest outside Akasaka Palace to protest the surrender announcement. It was the A-bomb that blew them out of their xenophobia for the war. The a-bomb convinced the emporer. The emporer convinced the people. The generals were left with no political support from anyone and robbed of moral authority from the throne. Get a clue...
PolishKnight| 9.13.10 @ 10:52PM
"Get a clue..."
"The generals were left with no political support from anyone"
You tell me to get a clue? Er, CoastieCPO, terms such as "political support" apply to DEMOCRACIES. The argument that the generals attempted to take the Emperor prisoner but failed and then lost support is something that could have happened whether the bomb was used or not. In addition, the USA could still have done such stuff as firebombing Tokyo and other cities to get a surrender from the Emperor (even as such acts by the Allies weren't considered at Dresden but that's another point...)
TR| 9.13.10 @ 1:43PM
I understand your point, PolishKnight, about moral high-ground, but I disagree on the potential success of negotiated surrender. We did allow their emperor to remain as a figurehead, and the fact that they didn't surrender after Hiroshima, resulting in the Nagasaki bomb, which, BTW, if you read the facts actually MISSED the target by a significant distance. It has been theorized by some historians after interviewing the crew of BoksCar (the plane that carried the bomb) that they intentionally missed the target after viewing the films of what happened at Hiroshima. The crew may have decided for themselves they could not drop it dead-on target. Their possible actions may have saved many more lives in Nagasaki than were lost.
I have found it easy to arm-chair second guess decisions made in the heat of war, and I agree that nuclear weapons are a scourge on mankind, but I cannot and will not second guess Pres. Truman's decision.
I also have relatives that served in WW2, as well as my parents who were teenagers during the war, so I have had firsthand experience also in hearing their tales.
FDR was a socialist who did betray us at Malta.
Japan did invade the US, think Aleutian islands.
The Nuremberg trials did set a precedent. But I believe, and I could be wrong, it mainly pertained to the actions taken by the Nazis against the innocent Jewish and Roma population, wholesale extermination for hatred not casualties of war. Hiroshima was an industrial target placed in the middle of a populated area. I don't know if Nagasaki was also.
As far as USSR propaganda, I never in my life gave a moment of concern about propoganda spewed by communists and their minions, and still don't about the current crop of marxist commies in our own political system.
Margie| 9.13.10 @ 2:13PM
Bravo, TR! Well said.
PolishKnight| 9.13.10 @ 11:03PM
Very well, we can quibble over Island invasions versus the mainland and whether the Japanese, especially at the war's end, really was going to be in a position to launch such an invasion.
The USSR's propoganda was useful in undermining American credibility in the Korean and Vietnam war especially in the latter. The Nuremberg's main precedent apparently is that if you're going to prosecute war crimes, be sure to be on the winning side (hence the Soviet's butchering of more millions than Hitler, including during WWII, didn't get mentioned.)
Armchair quarterbacking: That's what we're all doing here whether we're criticizing the quarterback or armchair cheerleading. (Silly me, I thought we lived in a Democracy rather than treating Truman like an Emperor...) One thing is for sure: Truman certainly didn't lose the election of 1948 because he dropped the bomb. It was easier to end the war, quickly, using everything he had at his disposal and I can respect that. To quote the great line from Doctor Strangelove:
President Merkin Muffley: I will not go down in history as the greatest mass-murderer since Adolf Hitler.
General "Buck" Turgidson: Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American People than with your image in the history books.
And I can see both sides but lean towards the former because the caution is about human history and thinking long term.
Let's say... for the moment... that Truman didn't drop the bomb and after some nasty firebombings a month later, Japan surrendered. And the USSR didn't get their fake victory. And the USA had moral authority.
That would have been pretty great. Yeah, Truman was a good President under those circumstances, but not a truly great one and that's why he barely won in 1948.
John H. Costello| 9.13.10 @ 12:08PM
There were actually more reasons for the colonists distrust of Parliament and King George:
a) the colonies had been running their religious affairs for years, but the CofE had developed a missionary position, had sent "missionaries to the heathen" who set up shop across from Harvard Yard, and when one of the southern states's legislatures authorized a methodist college, Parliament over-ruled them.
b)The Crown wanted to establish a regime similar to that in Ireland.
)the stamp tax had to be paid in specie-- while it cost a few shillings to become a lawyer in London, it was something like 5 pounds in America.
c_) under mercantilist policies London demanded that all; American foreign trade go through England.
Had the British won the war, they wouold have set us up for something ike the french Revoltuion ib he 1840s. Because of the loss of the main american colonies the British colonial office changed its demands, which allowed my Tory ancestors to live under a relatively civilized regime in Canada until their descendants got tired of the cold and came south.
cl| 9.13.10 @ 12:30PM
"kennedy" institute of "ethics" ?????? those two words do not belong in the same sentence. it follows that keown works at this institute.
TR| 9.13.10 @ 2:13PM
Well said. An institute of ethics named after one of the most unethical families in the US. Robert and Joseph Jr. may have been the real thing, but John and of course the murder Ted were far gone immoral humans.
Keown is simply an example of the old adage "those than can, do. Those that cannot, teach."
This is not intended as a slam on all teachers, but their profession is loaded with Keown types.
CalMark| 9.13.10 @ 2:25PM
Let's not forget that the Patriarch, as he's called, Joseph P., was a rummrunner and bootlegger who made his money criminally.
Nate W.| 9.13.10 @ 12:44PM
I might point out, as further proof of Mr. Keown's incredible bias against the Founders, he fails to mention even ONE instance of wrong-doing/bullying coming from the "U.S. Government" in his analogy.
NavyBrat | 9.13.10 @ 12:53PM
I LOVE this line:
"(This is not, of course, to condone everything the Allies did, such as the nuclear incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a flagrant breach of the just war's prohibition on targeting non-combatants.)"
Right. It would've been FAR better to have lost upwards of a million guys to invade the Japanese home islands. Its guys like Keown who think that we should "understand" the jihadis rather than exterminate them. Its guys like him who fail to realize that the Japanese & the jihadis are very much alike.
For the Japanese, to die for the Emperor (a god), was the greatest honor one could achieve. The same is true of the jihadis. Killing one's self while killing infidels in the process is the highest honor a jihadi can achieve. Neither ideology accepted surrender. To win against such a foe, you must be willing to do ALL that is neccessary. If that means nuking a city so that almost a million more people don't have to die, then so be it.
drgene| 9.13.10 @ 12:55PM
Dr Keown's infatuation with an ARCHAIC
moral theology on the Criteria for a Just War
is Intellectual Buffoonery at its best. I say that
as a Professor of Religious Studies familiar with
Christian Ethics and Comparative Religions.
Most wars, and revolutions, are either
(1)acts to affirm inalienable God-given human
freedom and rights(e.g defensive revolts vs tyrants and defensive wars vs aggressors--imminent /proleptic or actual)
or
(2)acts which resolve the dilemma of
double effect: doing a lesser "evil" to
combat a graver evil that threatens
the soul itself or the capacity to be
truly human--both of which are ultimate
values in Christianity.
Picky little lists of justifications of war
generated by Patristic & Scholastic Theology
do NOT directly address either of these
fundamental Truths. Jesus Himself addressed
the problem of how His Disciple ought best
respond to Evil. It was a set of responses the
Founders followed(see list of responses to
English tyrrany in the DECLARATION)--even
though they did Not invoke Jesus. That list of
responses does NOT abrogate the Right to
Self Defense, the Defense of other humans
in peril, and the Right to take acts which can
Save one's Soul-Self from destructive assaults
(e.g. tyrrany, lies, persecution etc)
Good grief, Professor Keown, get beyond
this Classic Moral Theology/Philosophy
that (a) has no real roots in Jesus on evil,
not (b) is correlated with modern forms of
tyrrany and military powers that justify
the human right to revolution and/or war
if /when protests are ineffectual!
Margie| 9.13.10 @ 2:16PM
Beautiful.
agathis| 9.13.10 @ 1:10PM
Keown is making the same mistake as before, which he's proven unwilling to accept: that though he claims to simply be adopting the standard criteria of just war, he is not *applying* them correctly.
Beyond that, when Keown says, "I question whether they suffered any injustice at all, let alone tyranny," he has completely gone off the rails. No serious student of history and ethics could make such a claim. But it is typical of his arguments. Such an admission reveals that he's not capable of arguing the merits. He's already made up his mind. Everything else is merely a justification for a position he already hold for some (presumably ideological) reason of his own.
Bill Quantrill| 9.13.10 @ 1:18PM
"I reiterate that I adopt the standard criteria as articulated by orthodoxsources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
Why should CATHOLIC doctrines even be relevant to any uprising against an empire that had an explicitly PROTESTANT king? From the point of view ofany good Catholic, the British monarchy itself had been in a state of rebellion against the Pope and all of Christendom for more than two centuries prior to the Revolution, when a syphilitic monarch named HenryVIII had expelled Keown's beloved church from England in order to divorce his wife, seize church assets and real estate, and invest himself with even more power than he had before his falling out with Catholicism. Considering the decadence, moral depravity, and literal insanity into which the British monarchy had descended since the 1500s, the Chinese "Mandate of Heaven"concept is far more relevant to the issue than any Catholic "just war"doctrine. Oh, and if the revolution was unjust, then why did the VERY Catholic kings of Spain and France pick the wrong side?
Tim*| 9.13.10 @ 7:41PM
Hey Quantrill , The Founders of Just War Theory are probably the triad of Aristotle, Cicero and Augustine .
Aristotle's work was a major influence on Islamic philosophy
, and for centuries his writings dominated European thought. Averroes, perhaps the most famous of all Arab philosophers, attempted to create a synthesis of Islamic theology and Aristotelian rationalism. Maimonides
, the most influential of medieval Jewish thinkers, achieved a similar synthesis for Judaism. Aristotle was dead before The Catholic Church was created . So was Cicero .
This is a Brit Barrister over here in LaLa Academe Land attempting to talk the panties off The American Jury of Public Opinion using Just War Theory .
Bill Quantrill| 9.14.10 @ 1:31PM
Thanks for that fascinating information, Tim*. It's interesting how a "rabid right-winger" like you actually demonstrates a lot more comprehensive knowledge of the so-called Just War Theory in a few blog lines than some half-assed egghead from Georgetown. His study in this issue seems to be narrowly confined to Medieval Catholic theologians, which provoked my response to which you commented.
Bill Quantrill| 9.13.10 @ 1:21PM
"This is not, of course, to condone everything the Allies did, such as thenuclear incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a flagrant breach of thejust war's prohibition on targeting non-combatants."
Hiroshima was a perfectly legitimate target for destruction. It was the location of the HQ of the Imperial Japanese Army's Fifth Division and the 2nd General Army, and it had several military encampments and manufacturing centers for war materiel. If Japanese civilians were not permitted to depart industrial centers for the relative safety of the countryside, the fault for their deaths lies in the hands of their own government. The Japanese occupation of China alone was killing 5-6,000 civilians per day, so the use of atomic devices to force an abrupt end to this humanitarian catastrophe was justified, even if you didn't care about the U.S. soldiers, marines, sailors, etc. that would have been killed in an invasion of the Japanese homeland.
Keown's misrepresentation of WWII is as obscene as his misrepresentation of the American Revolution. Ever heard of the Potsdam Ultimatum, Herr Professor? The Japanese were warned several days ahead of time to surrender prior to the strike on Hiroshima, and responded with MOKUSATSU (silent contempt), and maintained that attitude for almost a week AFTER the strike on Nagasaki.
Bill Quantrill| 9.13.10 @ 1:23PM
"Did the imposition of a few, limited taxes on the wealthy colonies to helppay for their security constitute a just cause for armed insurrection?"
That question is extremely loaded. The mentally-unstable Hanoverian monarch and his parliamentary allies in England might have agreed with the expressions "few" and "limited" to "pay for their security" describe their taxation policies, but a lot of American colonists obviously did not. Because the colonists already kept their own weapons and maintained their own militias, they neither needed nor desired the presence of foreign Redcoat regulars and German mercenaries to "protect" their hearths and homes, as the angry reaction to the presence of such troops clearly indicated.
Bill Quantrill| 9.13.10 @ 1:25PM
"Only weeks before Congress sent the Petition, it not only raised aContinental Army but authorized it to invade Canada. (So much, we may note,for the rebel war being 'defensive.')"
The Continental Army was simply an amalgamation of colonial/state militias into centralized command to maintain the security of the American communities from outside invaders, including those wearing scarlet tunics. Canada of course had been seized by the British (with substantial assistance from the American colonial militias that Keown detests) from France only a few years earlier, so it was perfectly reasonable (although erroneous) for the American revolutionaries to see the area as in play, much like the colonies south of New England, particularly when considering the large French-speaking population inhabiting Quebec was still resentful of the forced annexation into theAnglosphere.
Bill Quantrill| 9.13.10 @ 1:26PM
Regarding the insipid hypothetical scenario the author concocts at the end of his diatribe, ummmm, actually, something similar to that did happen inthe 1940s, when the U.S. armed forces liberated the Philippines from Japanese occupation during WWII. Despite the fact that thousands ofAmerican servicemen had perished in house-to-house fighting in Manila and other areas on the islands, the Philippines achieved its independence peacefully with the acquiescence of the U.S. government at the end of the decade. Too bad George III and Parliament lacked the magnanimity that Truman and Congress possessed.
CalMark| 9.13.10 @ 2:23PM
Professor Keown,
You have never outgrown the mentality prevalent in high school sophomores who try to convince everyone that the Earth is flat, and throwing tantrums when people laugh. Except you get paid--no doubt handsomely--by an AMERICAN university.
If you believe the USA was born of immorality, leave. Just get out of the country that was born of freedom and liberty, and which many of us happen to love deeply.
No one is forcing you to remain in this country which you regard as so immoral. Leave, and be happy. And if you don't want to give up your comfortable lifestyle, too bad: convictions like yours are expensive. Too bad you can get away with never paying your own moral bills.
Grenville| 9.13.10 @ 2:27PM
I've always thought the War of Independence was essentially fought so a bunch of rich white guys did not have to pay their taxes. Ultimately, Britain had little strategic and economic interest in attempting to retain control of the American colonies after Saratoga (with France entering the conflict). When the Bourbon powers were ranged against them looking for payback for the Seven Years War the Brits quite frankly had more important things to worry about.
Evanston2| 9.13.10 @ 2:53PM
No doubt, a bunch of rich white guys didn't want to pay "their taxes." It seems like they didn't think they were getting their money's worth...from the rich white guys who were receiving these taxes. If you're entertaining a class warfare meme, it falls apart fairly quickly, doesn't it?
Most of the trigger pullers in the Revolution weren't "rich white guys" but they, too, somehow felt like they weren't getting their money's worth in governmental services from Great Britain. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The U.S. was able to govern itself quite successfully, thank you very much.
So the bottom line is that the colonists fought for better governance and got it. Whether this was worth the cost in lives, limbs, and lucre is best judged by those who lived it. As you say, "the Brits quite frankly had more important things to worry about" so it all worked out OK, right?
Well...that depends. That depends on whether you believe government exists to serve the people (e.g., the colonists) or whether the people exist to serve the government (e.g., the king and parliament). If justice is defined as serving the people, the Revolution was a Just War.
Perhaps you and Prof. Keown should reexamine whether the anti-colonial revolutions in Africa, for example, were "Just." I believe, with few exceptions, that they were a failure. Ah, but it is so un-PC to say so, isn't it? If Prof. Keown really wants to make the news, not just an obscure discussion at Georgetown or on this web site, he should step forward and apply his wisdom to other revolutions and their results. Of course, if he did so he might lose his sweet university post and no longer be a Rich White Guy. Can't have that, can we?
Bernard G. Chambers | 9.13.10 @ 4:12PM
Regarding any attempt to "educate" or "persuade" Mr. Keown, I am reminded of the adage that one should not try to teach algebra to a pig. It is a waste of your time and just annoys the pig.
Fenestra| 9.13.10 @ 9:45PM
Yes, and never fight a pig. You both get muddy and he likes it.
Grenville| 9.13.10 @ 5:43PM
Hi Evanston2,
Not too sure that the colonists would have thought in terms of deficits or surpluses of government services. The primary government service was Defence of the Realm. I don't think that the British were deficient in that regard. Indeed their success at securing the colonies frontiers and removing French and Spanish mercantile competition created the preconditions for a succesful War of Independence to be waged by the 'patriots' (together with the running down of British military establishments following the end of the Seven Years war).
Concur that the trigger pullers were not all rich white guys (on either side) but lets face it the Robespierre's and Lenin's of this world usually seem to be adept at getting others to do their bidding. America had her equivalents (not as pyschopathic or murderous) but certainly focussed on their own ideological agendas.
On the 'government serving the people' idea don't know if I really agree that was an outcome activley sought or achieved by the participants. Did things really change that much for your average American colonist post 1783?
Evanston2| 9.14.10 @ 1:20PM
Grenville, seriously, who doesn't think "What am I getting for this" when paying your taxes? The colonists simply thought they could do better, and they were right. Like the colonists, I also understand their past history with the British (Defence of the Realm) was "successful" but it's useful to remember that they left the Old World for various freedoms, including that of enjoying the fruits of their labor. These were practical men, "doers" and in the New World by nature were looking ahead. So I agree with your point about their British colonial past but also, like the colonists, find it to be little more than prelude.
Further, you ask whether things actually changed for the "average American colonist post 1783?" Depends on your timeline. Within a decade, a bit...by 1812, a lot. I believe American dynamism was unleashed, most noticeably in its westward push, plus the new nation attracted more men seeking opportunity to the New World. The nation grew rapidly in strength by any meaningful measure.
Finally, you don't agree that the "government serving the people" idea was "actively sought" although the literature of independence (Thomas Paine, etc.) would certainly point that way. Let's grant that this was merely Rich White Guy talk...then exactly why did the bulk of the population fight? What reason(s) or outcome(s) would you point to as "actively sought or achieved by the participants?" I'm interested in your explanation.
emo| 9.13.10 @ 6:10PM
This will be the new leftist mantra. The American Revolution was unjust. The United States of America is what historically has stood against global collectivism. Without the USA, the world would be far far more collectivist. The left has decided it wants to undo the American Revolution and its ideals (even if that means supporting colonalism and opposing self determination). That is what this argument between these two authors is really about: De-legitimizing the USA. Watch for this position to catch on among leftist intellectuals. That America is an illegitimate nation.
Margie| 9.13.10 @ 7:27PM
"That America is an illegitimate nation." Just when you didn't think it could go beyond "your all a bunch of racist, homophobic, xenonophobic, war-mongering aggressors. sigh.
Thom| 9.13.10 @ 6:57PM
The central fallacy in the concept of “just War” is the very pseudo principles or tenets people like Dr. Keown try to fit “war” into. Back a century or more when some of these tenets may have had some real world relevance left those who held to the idea that self defense is the only justification for war (after the first blow is thrown) typically ended up on the ash heap of history. Technological advancements in the last century have made most of Dr. Keown’s tenets read like a suicide pact. Gone is the time when one has years, months or even days under some circumstances to prepare for “war”. Such is the destructive power of weapons today that quite literally a modern era war fought with our latest weapons would start and end in the same day. In places like Israel, it would start and end in the same half hour. With such time and space compression the “luxury” of having people with too much free time on their hands and too cushy a life reason about the justifiable nature of a potential “war” being just or not is simply absurd. As shown by all our little brush wars since WWII the initial “justice” goes out of them after several years of real time second guessing every move and half arsed effort at “war”. Shit happens a lot; a lot of the wrong people ultimately die. War has always taken on a life of its own and that is the nature of the beast, no pun intended.
One of the best defenses against nonsense like Dr. Keown spews is the 1967 Israeli pre-emptive strike on its Arab neighbors. Had it not pre-empted it would have been overwhelmed. The replay in 1973 without Jordanian forces was a very close run thing for the Israelis. Being out numbered over 100 to one in population only requires that the larger population defeat the defending army. The winning population can finish the job with sticks and stones after that. This is the same and perpetual situation Israel finds itself in 24/7. I suspect Dr. Keown has no more real world answers to that situation than any other pacifist has. Was the 1967 pre-emptive strike by Israel “just” Dr. Keown? An act of self defense?
The central tenet and fallacy in his concept of “just war” is that the other side must be the aggressor. By default people must die, in large numbers normally in order for this condition to be met. If my neighbor threatens to kill me, goes inside his house and comes out with a shotgun do you really think Dr. Keown that letting him shoot first is my best course of action to justify my self defense response? Back when clubs and stones were the weapons of choice your beliefs may have had some following but not in the world of death to millions hurling through near space at 15,000 miles an hour. Try living in Israel Dr. Keown within range of the Lebanese/Syrian borders or close to Gaza and putting your tenets of “just war” into practice. Try putting your concept into practice against children taught to hate you from their earliest age and wearing a bomb vest as they sucker you into range…… Try actually fighting in a war and watch the “just” go out of your views at the micro level where the metal meets the meat.
Ask anyone who actually fought the Japanese on any of the Pacific islands including Okinawa in WWII and they will tell you the Japanese earned both “bombs” and as many as it would have took to stop the insane suicidal attacks and die to the last man tactics the Japanese practiced with reckless abandon from 1936 on. It goes without saying that if you haven’t walked in the shoes of those that have had to bear the burden of our wars then you haven’t earned the right to moralize about their actions after the fact. If you can’t find injustice before the American Revolution by the British it is because you haven’t look for it. That tends to be the way it looks from the safety of academia where the world’s worse tyrannies have been hatched time and time again by people with too much free time on their hands.
chris haynes| 9.13.10 @ 8:35PM
The war against Japan was just? Far from it.
A just war requires that "all reasonable means of avoiding war have been exhausted" We didnt seriously try to avoid war because we had another agenda.
Roosevelt and the establishment wanted us in the European war, but they were checkmated politically after the Nazi-Soviet war began. He could never get a declaration of war to save Soviet Russia, and in fact barely got an extension of the draft.
So on learning thru Magic that the Japs would attack becuase of the oil embargo, he never tries to meet them half-way. Instead, he gets his wars, the Pacific war a tragedy and largely a failure. Millions killed and the loss of China to the communists, although perhaps Roosevelt didnt see that as a bad outcome.
Thom| 9.13.10 @ 9:10PM
Chris, I think you are going to have a hard time finding justification for dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor and attacking the Philippines as an example of our lack of making an effort to avoid war with Japan. That we did know to some extent that something was a foot and basically did nothing proactive to find out what the entire Japanese fleet was doing from the late Nov 1941 is one matter but just in case you really haven’t looked beyond the conspiracy theory stuff on FDR, we had no capability what so ever to stop what took place in the western Pacific with absolute knowledge of the Japanese plans notwithstanding. We ceded naval superiority to the Japanese with the 1922 and 1935 Naval arms limitation treaties of which FDR signed the 1935 treaty. The Japanese violated that treaty in every conceivable way from day one. We had no means to defend the Philippines adequately or support it after the start of hostilities. That’s true even without the outcome of Pearl which had no material impact on the outcome of the war.
You are right in one respect; FDR did nothing to avoid war by preparing for one everyone knew was coming and thus enabled one to take place at our disadvantage. He failed at his first enumerated responsibility as Commander and Chief before the first bombs and torpedoes torn through our Battleships at Pearl and rained down on our meager forces in the Philippines.
Fenestra| 9.13.10 @ 9:55PM
"The war against Japan was just? Far from it."
Chris; That is an overwhelming display of ignorance. Why don't you ask a Korean or a Chinese person what they think of Japanese Imperialism. Ever hear of the Rape of Nanking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre#Rape
If you are going to be stupid, don't be so public about it.
Osamas Pajamas| 9.14.10 @ 12:05AM
One needn't spend very much time justifying armed rebellion --- war. The primacy of human rights trumps "the state interest" --- every time and in every context. The state has no reason to exist, apart from its duty to enforce human rights within its geographical jurisdiction.
I speak of the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ----The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
There is no right to violate rights. Violate the foregoing rights --- and get chopped to pieces. That's a "just war."
RCV| 9.14.10 @ 12:53AM
Not only was the American Revolution a thoroughly moral rebellion against monarchist oppression, the notion that it was a top-directed movement by rich planters to protect their economic interests is just false. I highly recommend you read the new book by T.H. Breen from Northwestern, "American Insurgents, American Patriots: The Revolution of the People". Professor Breen's brilliant and diligent scholarship convincingly demonstrates how the Revolution was, in fact, driven by the ordinary people of America, and motivated by a very moral sense of their God-given natural right to liberty and self-government. It's an inspiring read about a great and noble step forward in the history of liberty. Don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.
John II| 9.14.10 @ 9:25PM
Spot on, Roberto!
And now back to Abbott and Costello in "The Time of Their Lives" (1946), wherein Lou is the ghost of a Revolutionary War hero as well as a lowly tinker by trade.
Margie| 9.14.10 @ 9:50PM
John II you really crack me up.Your Granchildren must get a real kick out of you. And I say that affectionately!
Yosemeti Sam| 9.14.10 @ 1:26AM
Face it folks - this British sympathizer is a TRUTHER!
It's all the colonists - fault!
D. Singh| 9.14.10 @ 4:29AM
Sir
Keown writes:
‘Tooley says my case would be more persuasive if I could point to any conflict that met the criteria. I do not see why that should follow, but I am happy to oblige.’
He should be able to see why that should follow. It is to discover that in a world full of ‘sin’ (wrong-doing against God) if the Just War criteria are just.
In one breath he justifies Allied resistance to Nazi and Japanese tyranny; in the next he loses his nerve:
‘It seems to me that the Allies in the Second World War were justified in resisting the aggression of the Nazis and the Japanese. (This is not, of course, to condone everything the Allies did, such as the nuclear incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a flagrant breach of the just war's prohibition on targeting non-combatants.)’
In any event, what does he make of the sinking of French warships, not in an aggressive posture, by British warships in the Mediterranean during World War II?
He insists that it was a ‘tax revolt’ first and foremost – but does he not see that men do not simply take up arms over taxation with the risk of losing their lives, families and homes? Men take up arms because the reasons to rebel accumulate to a point where liberty, security and freedom are reduced to mere abstract expressions?
He states, with a degree of unjustified venom:
‘Despite three bites of the cherry, Tooley has failed to provide a cogent answer. And his list of British "repressions," such as the dissolution of colonial legislatures, is (as I pointed out in my last rejoinder) merely a list of understandable actions taken by the British to counter open rebellion. Tooley has, again, failed to explain why those actions were unjust, let alone tyrannical. Does the government not have as much a right to suppress unjust rebellion as citizens have a duty not to foment it?’
He describes the closure of legislatures as ‘merely a list of understandable actions taken by the British to counter open rebellion.’
It is more than that. Once a centralised executive power terminates men’s sources of justice (the legislature that produces local laws for local problems (Arizona?)): you silence those men. It is one thing for a centralised executive to say a particular legislative Act by a subordinate legislature is illegal it is entirely another to deny men justice.
Keown concludes that the executive power had a ‘right to suppress unjust rebellion’ only because his Just War criteria fails to justify any rebellion or war he can think of: even the Second World War.
He claims not to be a pacifist: ‘The just war tradition is not pacifist; neither am I.’ But when the Just War criteria are applied to a sinful world with their neat scholastic definitions and fine distinctions: the probability of tyranny triumphing multiplies by the hour.
One further point: men do not put their lives, their families, their homes and to those that have died and those yet to be born to foment unjust rebellion.
D. Singh| 9.14.10 @ 4:41AM
Sir
My apologies.
The last sentence should read:
‘One further point: men do not put their lives, their families, their homes and for those that have died and those yet to be born at risk to foment unjust rebellion.’
Jenny| 9.14.10 @ 10:28AM
I have thought for some time that the Revolutionary War was an unjust and unwarranted war. It's nice to know someone agrees with me.
Joe| 9.14.10 @ 11:17AM
Problem with trying to shoehorn moral/ethical decisions into a " just war formula" is that you aren't dealing with discrete countable items. Its a messy world by design. There will be unknowns and you should try your best to avoid war, but not at all costs. Sometimes wars are meant to be. You can read about those wars in the bible. Try not to work so hard at trumpeting that you are the smartest most ethical guy in the room - you just come off smug. But I suppose that's part of your job description.
homer| 9.14.10 @ 4:04PM
So this limey is preaching his concept of "just war"?
And he's claiming that those Founders who placed their ideas in front of both their fellow man and God, for inspection, violated his concept of "just war"?
And we're supposed to take this guy seriously?
Oh and one more thing, counselor. Take your pettifogging hypotheticals and shove them right up your sacristy, in some legal brief, where you and your ilk can fully enjoy them. They have no place in the real world, in 1776 or today.
Margie| 9.14.10 @ 9:51PM
I think I like this homer guy.
gary siebel| 9.15.10 @ 2:22AM
LOL... How utterly droll, and you even cite a CATHOLIC. I suppose Henry's kicking the Pope out was an unjust act, too.
Whether or not the revolution, or any war, is just, is beside the point. People felt strongly enough to fight. You could use a little dose of Common Sense. Perhaps you have heard of the doctrine of "created equal?' Any actions that got rid of nobility and aristocracy were fully justified.
Since you cited a CATHOLIC, perhaps you think the Pope should be put back in charge; that any rebellion against the papacy was unjust?
John| 9.19.10 @ 6:53PM
From Paul Fussell essay "Thank God For Atom The Bomb":
"It would be not just stupid but would betray a lamentable want of human experience to expect soldiers to be very sensitive humanitarians. The Glenn Grays of this world need to have their attention directed to the testimony of those who know, like, say, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, who said, 'Moderation in war is imbecility,' or Sir Arthur Harris, director of the admittedly wicked aerial-bombing campaign designed, as Churchill put it, to 'de-house' the German civilian population, who observed that 'War is immoral,' or our own General W. T. Sherman: 'War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.' Lord Louis Mountbatten, trying to say something sensible about the dropping of the A-bomb, came up only with 'War is crazy.' Or rather, it requires choices among crazinesses. 'It would seem even more crazy,' he went on, 'if we were to have more casualties on our side to save the Japanese.' One of the unpleasant facts for anyone in the ground armies during the war was that you had to become pro tem a subordinate of the very uncivilian George S. Patton and respond somehow to his unremitting insistence that you embrace his view of things. But in one of his effusions he was right, and his observation tends to suggest the experiential dubiousness of the concept of 'just wars.' 'War is not a contest with gloves,' he perceived. 'It is resorted to only when laws, which are rules, have failed.' Soldiers being like that, only the barest decencies should be expected of (Page 36) them. They did not start the war, except in the terrible sense hinted at in Frederic Manning's observation based on his front-line experience in the Great War: 'War is waged by men; not by beasts, or by gods. It is a peculiarly human activity. To call it a crime against mankind is to miss at least half its significance; it is also the punishment of a crime.' Knowing that unflattering truth by experience, soldiers have every motive for wanting a war stopped, by any means."