Was the American Revolutionary War a Just War? (Random thoughts on the 4th of July)
I suspect that is was not. Then again, we would have been left with British imperialism—hardly a nice alternative. (But is that a better alternative to American imperialism?)
In a nutshell, I find the independence of the thirteen colonies to be a strange event: On the one hand, when the American Indians were suffering a much more heinous fate, it is hard to think that the grievances of the colonies had much ring to them by comparison to their indigenous brethren. (Genocide vs. taxation without representation?) On the other hand, this whole affair was as more of a political experiment in concert with the geist of the times. It was something like the consummation of modern politics.
Since hindsight is 20/20, perhaps the American Revolutionary War was really a culminating experiment of the virtues of the Enlightenment and liberalism that played-out on the bloody canvas of colonialism. However we parse it out, there is nothing I can find in this history that is easily sold as purely good or evil.
Like most events in the tragic drama of humanity, our nation’s history is a messy affair.
Going back to the original question: I do wonder what a Catholic understanding of American history would yield on days like this. Would Aquinas sign off on Washington?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not put off by national holidays per se. I like them when they are made meaningful by larger, perennial themes. I enjoy and appreciate the solidarity and community that can come along with them.
Many times, however, I get the sense that we can get caught up and carried away by the fanfare. When that happens, I feel awkward. Or even worse, I feel cheap and alienated.
I think that the Roman Catholic Church’s sense of its own messy history ought to inform how we look at the history of the USA. Insofar as it doesn’t, I feel out of place—even like I don’t belong.
I wish I could just party. Really, I do. I love to party. I love fireworks and sing-a-longs.
But maybe the truth is that I don’t belong. More radically: Maybe I am not supposed to belong here, or anywhere.
I’m not sure. I am fairly certain of this: the predictable reactions of uncritical-religious celebrations and equally uncritical-religious critique and hand-wringing both miss the point. Like it or not, the places we live in—our tribes and home-places—are important to us. Like it or not, those important things all too often bring out the worst in us.
The Christian call to love seems to keep our sense of home intact while asking us to give up the superficial home for a deeper one that reveals itself in the authentic act of self denial. Politics in any nation has a long way to go to answer this poignant call.
Instead of getting carried away in either direction let us not be distracted from our task: to love.
I’m off to have dinner with friends this evening. Yesterday I grilled a chicken and wrestled with my boys. I also have been wondering whether we would have been better off today if we remained a British colony. (By “we” I mean those of “us” alive today, the ones who were not harvested in this tragic story.)
Altogether, I am beautifully confused and I feel blessed to be alive, to be in love with Love.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
American Catholics who wax enthusiastic about the American Revolution need to be reminded of a fact that the Canadians allow to be put in the portion of their school history texts about this era: the greatest uproar in the streets of Boston against the King and his Parliament was NOT over tea or stamps, but over toleration of Quebecois Catholicism:
In 1912, the English Cardinal Gasquet flatly declared that “the American Revolution was not a movement for civil and religious liberty; its principal cause was the bigoted rage of the American Puritan and Presbyterian ministers at the concession of full religious liberty and equality to Catholics of French Canada. “ Yes, he noted, people were upset by taxation but that could have been resolved if not for the “Puritan firebrands and the bigotry of the people.”
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/04/how-anticatholicism-helped-fue.html
While the Quebec Act did much to secure the allegiance of the Canadians to Britain, it had other unforeseen consequences. It was termed one of the Intolerable Acts by the American colonists, and contributed to the political disagreements of the American Revolution.
American colonists had concerns with the provisions of the act. The extension of the province’s territory to include the Ohio Country, combined with its religious provisions, meant that residents of that territory, which already had some settlers from Virginia and other colonies, were free to profess the Roman Catholic faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act_of_1774
http://www.andrewcusack.com/2007/03/03/the-men-who-saved-quebec/
No war that sends a third to a half of the population into permanent exile is just.
Oh yes, Americans don’t usually remember the United Empire Loyalists, do they?
Tea Party, my foot. Then and now alike.
If what you write is true, why is there no reference to the Quebec Act in the Declaration of Independence’s clauses where justifications for declaring independence are provided?
The Quebec Act reference:
I also have been wondering whether we would have been better off today if we remained a British colony.
In wondering, I would not be quick to assume that would mean an evolution to a society like Canada. Almost every subsequent move towards democracy and representative government following the American Revolution made reference to it. What the world would look like without this example is questionable.
From a letter of George Washington in response to a group of Catholic Gentlemen congratulating him on his election as President:
I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and libreality. And I presume that your fellow citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution, and the establishment of their government; or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed.
The Declaration of Independence throws everything it can think of at England, just to see what sticks. I’m sure the Founders would have been happy to get the anti-Catholic bigots on board with the revolution, but they didn’t protest the Catholicism of the expanded Quebec. They cited the abolition of English law, the establishment of an arbitrary government, and the expansion of its boundaries. The Act did constitute a threat to the colonists, because it meant that their law, their government, and their borders could be tossed aside at whim.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a Brit misread the American Revolution. It’s tough to understand another culture. Distance can give some perpsective, but it can also distort.
I’d take Kurt’s point one step further: Canada wouldn’t have developed into what it is if it weren’t for the big experiment going on nearby. Canada may have looked like Northern Ireland if it weren’t for the American Revolution.
Sam Rocha,
You seem to be asking whether it is possible to be a loyal and patriotic American and be a good Catholic at the same time. But I bet if someone told you he wouldn’t vote for a Catholic for president, you’d say he was anti-Catholic. If being a good Catholic means a person cannot to a very considerable extent take pride in being an American, then it does not seem to me that he or she belongs in public office, or at least national public office.
I am more than willing to consider the the proposition that being a loyal and patriotic American is incompatible with Catholicism. But I bet there are six justices on the Supreme Court who find holding high public office to be utterly compatible with being Catholic.
As I have said before, my Catholic education in the 1950s and early 1960s was at least as much about being American as it was about being Catholic. The Pledge of Allegiance was just as much a part of beginning the day as morning mass. Here is a song I well remember from music class:
Despite the commentary here, my intent in this post was to point to ambiguity of this matter. The questions raised seem to be simple enough and history doesn’t gives straightforward answers, I think. All in all, I fear that the reactions here show a dualistic understanding of things. I think one ought to have a real, natural attachment to one’s home-place. At the same time, one ought to be very careful about letting that attachment blur one’s ability to see the other.
Sam, there is no ambiguity here. You immediately switch from just war theory to a fictional end in order to create a feaux ambiguity. There is absolutely no ambiguity as to whether or not the revolt against mother England was justified. Countless encyclicals will testify to my argument. Ambiguity simply does not exist. If your point is to state that life can be confusing and difficult, that is fine. But I think we all figured that out around the age of four when we tried to figure out why our dad was making us fall on our butts while trying to learn how to ride a bike. Events are difficult and confusing but not normally ambiguous.
Franklin’s appeal to Great Britain could seem confusing but the facts remain the same. If you wish to argue that it was unjust for European Americans to dictate what East Asian Americans could do then you must concede it was unjust for Europeans to dictate what European Americans could and couldn’t do.
Furthermore, please save your half hearted “respect” for national celebrations such as Independence Day. Your attitude is heard loud and clear and is nothing short of disrespectful for those of us who have lost family and friends fighting to maintain independence. Woe is you who must live out his days in such an awful plight. “Maybe I’m not supposed to belong anywhere”. Get over it and move on. We are not of the world but in it. That is life. Thank God you are where you are because that kind of speak would seal your fate in many places in many times.
Your hesitancy to celebrate a national holiday seems to suggest that you never heard the sense of pride in JP II’s voice when he spoke of his native Poland. Was Poland perfect? Yet, this great man almost came to tears when speaking of his native land. Never have I heard JP II or Pope Benedict speak of their native countries the way you speak of yours. Yet, both of those nations have been part of more atrocities than America.
If you wish to stay in the land of confusion, keep lamenting. If you wish to live, embrace America as a way to express your Catholicism with actual love and zeal; not confusion, ambiguity, and a restrictive dualistic sense of history.
Yet, both of those nations have been part of more atrocities than America.
Mr. Michael, have you never heard of the genocide of the Native Americans? It may have been the largest genocide in recorded history.
And, in fact, just recently, in Germany, I heard native Germans speak with far more repugnance against THEIR native country than anything you can find on this thread. Just as Samuel Johnson (a truer “Christian conservative” than most who pretend to be, here in America) said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.”
Sean Michael:
Your tone—as I read it—suggests that you don’t trust me. If this is true, then, I suspect that arguing might be fruitless and only lead to anger.
If I m wrong about this (and I hope I am), then please know this:
My intent in this post is not (only) to wax sentimental about the ambiguities of life, it is more than that. Namely, to note the precariousness of our natural esteem for our “home-places” (e.g. nations, regions, houses…) and the tendency for that esteem to become ugly and destructive.
This plays out in the context of the 4th of July, but it is not limited to that. It extends to my esteem for my family and even my own life. That may seem outlandish to you, but, for me, it seems central to the Gospel.
Peace,
Sam
Happy belated 4th of July to Sean Michael, and “that killer, Kissinger”:
http://publius-aelius.livejournal.com/665128.html
Sam and David N.,
I don’t think you can make a blanket generalization on whether a good Catholic can be a loyal, patriotic American. America has both good and bad aspects based on various Catholic criteria, and one has to judge on a case-by-case basis whether one’s Catholic loyalties trump loyalty to the country–all the while remembering that our first loyalty as Catholic Christians must be to the Gospel of Jesus Christ–or to Christ himself as God, if you want to put it that way. That’s what we mean we say “Jesus is Lord.”