American Revolution: Was It Justified?

Great Debates
1

Whenever I read or hear about the founding of the United States, I’m always bothered by this nagging question, and I very rarely see it directly addressed. What usually gets addressed is the justification for American independence. It’s clear that the American colonists had plenty or reasons to want to be independent, but that doesn’t necessarily mean any of those reasons rises to a cause for war.

From what I understand, the taxes on colonists were sometimes punitive and inequitable, but they weren’t crushing or without justification. (I’ve seen arguments over whether the French & Indian War made them necessary and fair, but even if you reject that claim, they weren’t clearly illegitimate.) Not long after the Revolution, the Congress imposed taxes that were arguably just as inequitable and unfair, but no one thinks the Whiskey Rebellion should have succeeded.

The major issue seems not to have been the taxes per se, but that they were imposed without representation. But no one would think an act of war by the citizens of Washington, DC, would be justified; the costs in lives and property would be much greater than the injustice it would seek to remedy. No system is perfectly equitable, and there were areas in England with little representation in Parliament. The theory of government at the time was that each MP was supposed to act as a representative for all the people, and there were defenders of American rights in Parliament.

From what I understand, the real tipping point was the Boston Tea Party, in which the colonial patriots destroyed the private property of third party merchants who had done nothing to harm them and refused to pay for the damages. At that point, the rest of the independence movement either had to repudiate what was a blatantly illegal act of malicious vandalism, which would have sapped the movement of its most dedicated participants, or embrace their criminal element and lose all sympathy and respectability in England, and they chose the latter. As you can tell, I don’t have much sympathy for that decision.

Even at the hight of revolutionary ferver, I believe only about half of the civilian population in the colonies supported going to war.

In any war, innocent people are killed, lives are ruined, crops are destroyed, homes are burned, children are made orphans or worse, and the rule of law breaks down. What were the circumstances in America that made all that worth it? What had England done that was so intolerable that it was worth mass killing over?

2

It wasn’t a taxation issue. The Americans acknowledged they were paying lower taxes than Britons were paying back in the UK. And as soon as they won their independance, the American imposed higher taxes upon themselves than the British ever had.

It was a political issue. The British political system was based on the idea that the legitimacy of the government derived from the consent of the governed. And the Americans were not being asked for that consent from the government that ruled them. So the Americans felt with cause that the British government was illegitimate in the Americas by its own standards.

You are correct that there were places in England that didn’t have Parliamentary representation. And there are places in the United States that don’t have congressional representation. And these places could probably make the same argument that the Continental Congress made in 1776. The only difference was the Americans in 1776 represented a large number of people with a common grievance who were able to act together.

3

Careful, you didn’t CITE any of your assertions. Brace yourself.

I think the Boston Tea Party, though represented as a seminal event in the actual rebellion, didn’t have much to do with the onset of the Revolution. After all, armed rebellion didn’t begin for several years after it. It was more of a tax revolt than anything else, and was, after all, a local phenomenon, in a time when “local” meant much more than it does today.

In terms of whether the cause was justified, that’s debatable since one must parse out the value of political freedom–in the late 18th century. Certainly, England treated the Colonies with a mixture of benign neglect, condescension, and exploitation. How rankling people found this is hard to say (only the dissatisfied had a voice that persists to today). Would the Colonials eventually have become good English subjects, of equal standing to those of Britain? I doubt it–they would have become what Ireland became a few decades later–a blighted, impoverished resource colony. The British thought they were superior to the peoples they ruled, and would never have considered the Colonials as equals, except at the point of a gun.

Was the war worth the bloodshed and the cost? Again, debatable. Certainly, the eventual outcome would seem to suggest it was–a great nation that served as an idealistic beacon (however those ideals may have been subverted in practice) and a refuge for many of the world’s oppressed. The formation of the United States was a social experiment that needed to be performed.

One could argue that the bloodshed was as much the fault of Britain, trying to hold on its colonies, as it was of the revolutionaries. At no time did Britain consider a peaceful resolution of the situation, probably because they did not see the Colonials as equals.

4

The American Colonists didn’t just wake up one day and decide to go to war with Britain. The colonist made multiple appeals to King George and he basically told them to get stuffed. i.e. Parliament speaks for me on these matters.

Well who said they could tax the colonist in the first place? Why should the colonist have borne any burden for the French/Indian War? Britain maintained the colonies in order to exploit them economically. i.e. They wanted raw materials from the colonies to go to Britain, for British artisans/merchants to turn those raw materials into finished products and finally for those finished products to go back to the colonies for purchase. The cost of the French/Indian War was just the cost of doing business.

It wasn’t just taxes as there were a ton of other issues. The Declaration of Independence provides King George with a long list of complaints.

Ask King George and the British Parliament (band name). The colonies tried to resolve matters peacefully but most of the British government just wasn’t interested in playing ball.

5

But the other difference is that most people in the US seem to believe that the American cause was justified but that those other causes would not be or would not have been justified. If a group of people who oppose the lack of congressional representation for DC started blowing up government buildings would you really think they were in the right? I would not, even if they had a good chance at winning. I’m curious if there is any rational standard by which I can continue to think that and yet believe that the Revolutionary War was justified.

6

Yes, but not every case of governmental injustice validates war. There are plenty of people in the US today who lack effective representation in the government, but I wouldn’t assume all of them should start blowing up buildings or shooting cops and soldiers.

7

I don’t understand your point. Okay, I agree, not every case of governmental injustice validates war.

There’s a long list of complaints the colonies had against the British government. Remember, the colonists were people who were used to legislating for themselves. To have what amounts to a foreign government dissolving your rights was simply intolerable. I guess we can dance around the issue of whether or not the colonist had valid reasons to go to war but I’d like you to answer one question. What are valid reasons to go to war?

8

Self defense (your people are being murdered), defense of others (French people are being murdered), to prevent genocide or other major human rights abuses that result in murder (so the American civil war gets a pass), and… that’s about it.

It’s simple math, as far as I’m concerned. Somewhere between 75 and 100 thousand people died in the Revolution. If the Revolution hadn’t happened, how many people would have died?

9

Yup, one need only read the Declaration of Independence for the reasons given for the revolution.

If you’re not arguing based on what reasons they actually gave, then you’re arguing from ignorance.

10

Nobody liked the English. They treated their colonial subjects poorly and rewarded a few who were supossed to keep the others in line.

Just a few of the highlights leading up to the Declaration of Independence -

March 5, 1770 - Eleven colonists were shot by British regulars in Boston town. Five received fatal wounds.

November 1773 - merchant ships arrived in Boston and Charlotte carrying the first shipments of tea subject to Parliment’s Tea Act. Bostonians tossed their tea overboard and Charlotte later sold theirs to pay for the war effort. The colonies had no representative in Parliment. Taxation withOUT representation pssst people off.

May 20, 1774 - Parliment’s Government Act dissolved the provincial assembly and gave the British Governor control of all Boston town meetings. Still no representation in Parliment.

April 18, 1775 - Paul Revere, along with other riders, left Boston to warn colonials that 700 British regulars were heading to Concord in yet another attempt to confiscate colonial/rebel firearms. Revere was captured by the British and warned the British regulars that they were gonna get their butts kicked by colonists if they continued towards Concord.

April 19, 1775 - Lexington Green - bullets began flying and people began dying. The shot heard round the world was fired and the War for Independence/another colonial rebellion against the British had begun.

Sometimes, people just get tired of being pushed around. People with rifles and tomahawks fight back.

11

Maybe not “effective” representation but they do have representation. The colonials had no representation in Parliment. The colonials were forced to house and feed the Kings soldiers and horses. The British troops were trying to confiscate colonial firearms. Local governments were being shut down and replaced by British rule.

Eventually, the British troops, Parliment, and the King got what was coming to them.

12

Did the American revolution really make that much difference in the long run? Canada stayed loyal to the Empire and seems to have managed rather well without a bloody war. Had the US followed that course it’s possible that there would be a United States of North America today, a country twice the size of the present USA. And would the British have permitted slavery to continue in North America until the middle of the 19th century? It seems highly unlikely.

So what was gained by the Revolution which wouldn’t have come anyway?

13

How many colonies did the Empire peacefully allow to go their own way before the American Revolution? How many did they grimly cling to using force of arms after the Revolution? IIRC, they handled those nice white folks in Canada a bit differently than they did the nice brown folks in India. Seems they were less than accomadating when the Irish wanted a divorce, too.
Looking at post-revolution history and claiming things would have worked out the same if those colonists had just stayed good little subjects of The Crown seems like wishful thinking.

14

Not having Canada being part of the US. :slight_smile:

Plus, it’s unclear that the Louisiana purchase would have taken place or the purchase of Alaska. Or the war with Mexico. Things could have played out quite differently.

15

The Revolutionary War was part of a much larger picture. The Americans could probably never have succeeded were it not for the French. The French assisted mainly because they were long-time enemies of the British. Interestingly, I am just now re-reading Barbara Tuchman’s excellent The First Salute. It’s an excellent study of the American revolution.

A fairly substantial minority of British – including some of the generals – were not particularly in favor of the war and begged to be relieved of their commands. There were other conflicts ongoing between France and Britain regarding various Caribbean islands among other things.

16

Well, that’s the rub, isn’t it? I’ll answer, but first I’d like to suggest that there are three broad categories of response I can see to my question in the OP, and I’d like to know which one people fall into:

  1. Neither the American Revolution, nor the assorted other causes mentioned here (DC representation, Whiskey Rebellion, etc.) justify war. This is the position I find myself currently most aligned with, but I suspect myself of error.

  2. The American Revolution was justified, but other similar causes are not justified as causes for war. This is the position I find most interesting, and it’s the one I suspect most people hold. I’m curious what the logic behind it is. I admit I don’t know much about the history of the American Revolution, and I find it entirely plausible that given more information about the injustices suffered by the colonists, I might be swayed to this position. What I’ve read in the Declaration of Independence and what I remember from High School history class don’t convince me that a principled distinction can be drawn between the types of causes I’ve mentioned (US revolution on the one hand and various other causes on the other hand) or that the types of injustices perpetrated by England against the colonies would today be seen by the majority of Americans as justifying a rebellion or civil war. I’d like to learn either the facts of colonial repression or the theories of war and governance that would support this position.

  3. The American Revolution, the Whiskey Rebellion, DC representation and any other situation in which people suffer at the hands of a government they are not represented by (Democrats in Utah?) are all valid causes for war. Get your guns!

Now, to answer your question, I’m a utilitarian, so at least in theory, I think any war that causes, in sum, less suffering than it prevents is a good war. I’m not sure that the American Revolution lives up to that measure, but I also think that it is such a difficult measure to take, that it is practically useless. So in practice I tend to substitute the following criteria for a just war. This is off the top of my head, so I reserve the option to refine or disavow any or all of these in future.

War may be justified in cases of 1) a grave existential threat to a people or their way of life OR 2) abject oppression or subjugation of a people with little hope of redress OR 3) extreme deliberate and violent disregard for the security of the global community and for the means of peaceful intercourse among its members IF 4) the goals of warfare [directly attached to criteria 1 through 3] can and will be achieved without intentionally causing the suffering or death of non-combatants AND 5) without causing suffering or death incommensurate with the goals to be achieved AND with the likelihood of success AND 6) no other means likely to result in less suffering or death is likely to achieve those goals or to mitigate the need for war.

All that being said, I don’t think it is necessary for anyone else to hold those or similar criteria for war in order to hold a justified position on the questions posed by my OPO.

17

There would have been no War of 1812 and no music to commerate it.

The 13 British Commonwealth colonies would have entered WWI in August 1914.

The 13 British Commonwealth colonies would have entered WWII in September 1939.

Russia would still own the Alaskian territories with all of it’s oil and minerals.

Mexico would still own the territories of California and Texas plus all of the oil and minerals.

France would still own the territory from Louisiana up to Montana and Minnesota plus all the oil and minerals.

England, for the most part, championed the slave-holding Confederate States of America that supplied it with cotton.

18

The difference between the American Revolution and the Whiskey Rebellion was “representation” in the governing body. There was no colonial representation in Parliment while the Whiskey rebels did have representation in Congress.

If they didn’t like the whiskey tax, their representatives could have created a bill to replace, alter, or repeal it.

19

Seconded. I also recommend Liberty by Thomas Fleming (an excellent overview of the American Revolution from start to finish) and Iron Tears by Stanley Weintraub (a very interesting look at the war through British eyes, showing how deeply divisive the war effort was in Great Britain, both politically and socially).

20

World War I and II would not have happened considering history would be completely thrown out of whack after a century and half of divergence.