Read on Twitter
My defense of the American War of Independence:
A lot of trads are very critical of America because they see a rebellion of republicans away from a monarch. I think the picture of what was actually going on is much more complex and the American War of Independence was /1
A lot of trads are very critical of America because they see a rebellion of republicans away from a monarch. I think the picture of what was actually going on is much more complex and the American War of Independence was /1
actually deeply conservative even if it had liberal elements.
The roots of the justification for the war go back to the Magna Carta. This was a deal between the kings and the lords. It established a tradition in England of constitutional monarchy. The king did not have the /2
The roots of the justification for the war go back to the Magna Carta. This was a deal between the kings and the lords. It established a tradition in England of constitutional monarchy. The king did not have the /2
right to raise taxes without the consent of parliament. At the same time, parliament was subject to the king. It was one of the best examples of a mixed regime, endorsed by Aristotle, Cicero, and St. Thomas. It had monarchy (a king), aristocracy (the House of Lords), and /3
polity (the House of Commons).
The balance of powers in England was upset by Henry VIII. He centralized power under the monarchy by breaking the traditional distinction between Church and State. Under James I, the monarchy became very centralized. James I’s power grabs were /4
The balance of powers in England was upset by Henry VIII. He centralized power under the monarchy by breaking the traditional distinction between Church and State. Under James I, the monarchy became very centralized. James I’s power grabs were /4
objected to by Francisco Suarez (who was commissioned by Pope Paul V to write a refutation of James I) and St. Robert Bellarmine.
This centralization of power lead to the English Civil War. Rather than restoring the old balance of powers though, Oliver Cromwell just became a /5
This centralization of power lead to the English Civil War. Rather than restoring the old balance of powers though, Oliver Cromwell just became a /5
new tyrant. Charles I was also killed, but killing a tyrant is unjust unless he is a foreigner according to Suarez.
Under the reign of Charles II, two of the greatest defenders of the divine right of kings wrote in reaction to the chaos that had ensued, Thomas Hobbes and /6
Under the reign of Charles II, two of the greatest defenders of the divine right of kings wrote in reaction to the chaos that had ensued, Thomas Hobbes and /6
Robert Filmer. While many trads see these men as great defenders of kingship, they are actually deeply problematic. Hobbes was essentially the founder of liberalism, but with a tyrannical government to keep the peace. (Hobbes essentially predicted what would actually happen as /7
a result of liberalism). Filmer rejected natural law and explicitly names Suarez and Bellarmine as his opponents in Patriarchia.
One of the main philosophical opponents of Hobbes and Filmer was Algernon Sidney. Although Sidney was a Protestant, he used Suarez and Bellarmine /8
One of the main philosophical opponents of Hobbes and Filmer was Algernon Sidney. Although Sidney was a Protestant, he used Suarez and Bellarmine /8
as evidence in defense of resistance to a tyrant. Charles II had Sidney killed for treason. Sidney was one of the main influences on the Founding Fathers.
Another revolution came under the reign of James II. However, there is really no argument that James II was a tyrant. He /9
Another revolution came under the reign of James II. However, there is really no argument that James II was a tyrant. He /9
was a very godly man and a good ruler. He was ousted for being Catholic.
The Glorious Revolution did not restore the former balance of powers though. Instead it simply established parliamentary supremacy. The king had little power.
Meanwhile in the New World, the colonies /10
The Glorious Revolution did not restore the former balance of powers though. Instead it simply established parliamentary supremacy. The king had little power.
Meanwhile in the New World, the colonies /10
were directly under the king, not under parliament. However, the colonists were still seen as Englishmen with the full rights of Englishmen. Therefore, under the Magna Carta, they could not be taxed without representation. When parliament began to tax them, they objected that /11
their rights had been violated not because of mere taxation, but that it was without representation. This was not some grand statement of natural law, but rather an appeal to English tradition. This is why the argument that the taxes became higher after the war fails. It is /12
not the quantity of taxation that was the problem, but the quality.
The king could have taken three paths to avoid the war. First, he could have repealed the taxes. However, it is understandable that he needed the money to pay back the war debt. The second option would have /13
The king could have taken three paths to avoid the war. First, he could have repealed the taxes. However, it is understandable that he needed the money to pay back the war debt. The second option would have /13
been to give the Americans representation in parliament. This would have very much changed the nature of the relationship between the colonies and England and would have essentially made them part of England. This change would have been welcomed by the colonists though. The /14
third option would have been to set up a seperate American parliament. The king could have placed a fair amount of debt on this parliament and make then figure out a way to pay it off.
Since the king failed to grant them their rights as Englishmen, and parliament had /15
Since the king failed to grant them their rights as Englishmen, and parliament had /15
overstepped its bounds, by English law they had become tyrannical. By natural law, one may rebel against a tyrant if a greeater good will be achieved by this.
The fact that America became a republic after the war does not mean that it was not a legitimate government. There /16
The fact that America became a republic after the war does not mean that it was not a legitimate government. There /16
were many republics (or government that had republican elements) throughout history which were traditional: Rome, Venice, Iceland, England, and even the Holy Roman Empire.
America’s government had many traditional aspects of Catholic government, such as subsidiarity (through /17
America’s government had many traditional aspects of Catholic government, such as subsidiarity (through /17
counties and states) and a mixed regime, with monarchy represented by the President, aristocracy represented by the Senate (which was originally elected by the state governments and not by the people), and polity represented by the House of Representatives. One may object /18
that the President is not really a monarch, but Cicero considered the consuls to fulfil the role of monarch in Rome so the President meets this classical understanding of monarchy.
The other major objection to America by trads is usually from its seperation of Church and /19
The other major objection to America by trads is usually from its seperation of Church and /19
State. This is indeed problematic. However, at the time it did secure the religious freedom of Catholics. Pragmatically, it was a good thing.
There is much more I could say on this, but this is already far longer than I intended. I am not saying by any of this that the /20
There is much more I could say on this, but this is already far longer than I intended. I am not saying by any of this that the /20
Constitution is perfect or that the Founding Fathers had a perfect philosophy. Both were too influenced by liberalism. However, there was just cause for war and republics are a licit form of government so I am proud to be American and to support our independence from foreign /21
tyrants.
“Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the /22
“Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the /22
ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church.” - Pope Leo XIII, Longinqua /23
