It is too bad that too many people apparently accessed the article for free and the publisher shut down access. If you could actually read the article, you would see the answers to all -- or at least almost all -- of your questions/criticisms.
I address the Romans 13 issue -- but not in a caricatured fashion as in Mark's hypothetical. Incidentally, my view of Romans 13 is identical to that of Calvin -- though not to that of some CalvinISTS.
I address the so-called "lesser magistrate" issue and I deal specifically and at length with Wilson's argument in "Considerations." A major problem that some have -- including Eric Patterson in his article -- is that they automatically assume that everything that the colonists (inc. Wilson) said was TRUE. If that's the case, then, yes (tautologically), it would be foolish to take another position. But not everything they said was in fact true.
I am not blissfully ignorant of English law. Those who make the argument that the law was the highest authority (or that the Constitution is the highest authority in the US today) are, of course, correct. But what does that mean practically? "The law" (or "the Constitution" -- as we've seen in the last two days) is not self-interpreting. Someone has to interpret and apply the law in order to make the rubber meet the road. The issue is: who has authority to do that?
Those who claim that authority for themselves are antinomian and make themselves the law. In Romans 13, God gave authority to PEOPLE -- to agents of His; in the language of Romans 13: to "ministers of God" and "servants of God." In the Old Testament, to "shepherds" and "anointed" and "My servant." As Calvin rightly says: "even if the punishment of unbridled tyranny is the Lord's vengeance, we are not to imagine that it is we ourselves who have been called upon to inflict it. All that has been assigned to us is to obey and suffer." Calvin also said: "if you go on to infer that only just governments are to be repaid by obedience, your reasoning is stupid."
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Frazer Responds on Whether American Revolution Was a Just War
In the comments here. He writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Again, we must accept Gregg Frazer's religious beliefs to accept his history. Calvinism in Britain had rejected Gregg's absolutist reading of Romans 13 well over 100 years before the American Revolution.
In fact, one of the core originators of "Calvinist Resistance Theory" was John Knox, the founder of the Church of Scotland, the parent church of America's Presbyterian Church.
http://www.davekopel.com/Religion/Calvinism.htm
Why, exactly, must anyone accept my religious beliefs in order to recognize that law is not self-interpreting? What does that even have to do with religion? Do you not recognize that fact -- even though you don't share my religious beliefs? Doesn't some person or persons have to determine AUTHORITATIVELY what "unreasonable" means in the Fourth Amendment? If everyone simply decides for themselves, there is no civil society, but anarchy. So "the law" cannot be the "governing authority" in a practical sense. For it to be the governing authority in ANY sense, it must be interpreted and applied -- by people. That takes us back to square one.
The only religious content in my comment was specifically about Romans 13 -- which is only one PART of the issue -- and not at all the main point. Mark brought it up and I simply responded.
"Calvinism in Britain had rejected Gregg's absolutist reading of Romans 13 well over 100 years before the American Revolution." Really? "Calvinism" had rejected it or "SOME Calvinists had rejected it?" They ALL had rejected it? Why, then, did Jonathan Mayhew feel the need to write his seminal discourse against the position I take? And why was that discourse proclaimed "the Morning Gun of the Revolution" -- if everyone already held to that view? You needn't accept my religious beliefs to accept "my" history -- you just need to broaden your scope, not make such sweeping declarations, and not reflexively respond to all of my points with the charge that they're religiously-based.
John Knox & his friends speak for "Calvinism in Britain" all by themselves? Really? When was the synod held that elevated him to Calvinist pope and his buds to cardinals?
Even regarding Romans 13: do you deny that Romans 13 and the Old Testament used the terms that I said: ministers, servants, shepherds, anointed? Does one have to share my religious beliefs in order to be able to read?
How about responding to what Calvin HIMSELF said? That has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.
The fact that the colonists, including Wilson in his famous essay, never identified an actual law that established the notion of "no taxation without representation" has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. You want to emphasize English law? -- identify the statute that proclaimed "no taxation without representation." The fact that Wilson's argument was so jumbled, inaccurate and, frankly, propagandistic that he even got the country wrong in a case that he cited has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. [he said "Ireland" throughout his discussion of "Calvin's case" -- but it actually concerned Scotland]
Tom, your reflexive "we have to share Gregg's religious beliefs to accept his history" is tired, lazy, and, frankly, intellectually dishonest from someone who hasn't even read "my" history.
You've written 1000s of words here and Jon has printed 1000s more. Plus I read the essay in question before it was taken offline.
My objection that we must accept your religious beliefs to accept your history is a formal objection. Your use of "lazy" and "intellectually dishonest" is what's out of line here, Dr. Frazer.
Further, it's you who cherry-pick John Calvin himself as authoritative on the absolutist interpretation of Romans 13. Calvin's friend, colleague, biographer, and immediate successor Theodore Beza:
Beza agreed with St. Augustine that evil governors are simply a type of robbers. Just as people had an obvious right to resist highway robbers, people likewise had a right to resist the tyranny of the state:
"Hence it comes about that the man who meets with highway robbers, by whom no one is murdered without the consent of the will of God, has the power in accordance with the authority of the laws to resist them in just self-defense which incurs no blame because no one forsooth has (received) a special command from God that he meekly allow himself to be slain by robbers. Our conviction is entirely the same about that regular defense against tyrants which we are discussing."
http://www.davekopel.com/Religion/Calvinism.htm
And John Knox was no random Calvinist. He founded the Church of Scotland, which was the church of the American Presbyterians. [The Presbyterian Church in America formed after the Revolution.] And you're of course familiar with the Puritan revolution in Britain in the 1640s. Calvinist resistance theory is no chimera.
Secondly, my own objection [based on memory, as your essay was taken off free viewing] was
I liked Gregg's arguments, he hit all the bases. As you know, the colonists didn't accept Parliament as a rightful authority--the colonies got their charters from the crown well before the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which established Parliament's power above the king.
So when Gregg says that the colonies were bound to obey Parliament because the king told them to, I don't know if sovereignty is transferable like that. Even a king is accountable to his people and Parliament was in no way accountable to the Americans.
Gregg's argument hinges on this, and that's where I think it falls apart.
Tom: I apologize for the polemical adjectives -- I plead temporary insanity in reaction to your repeated and I think completely unfair charge that "my" history is dependent upon my religious beliefs. It is maddening to one who deals for the most part in history that is independent of religious belief and who works very hard to separate his own religious beliefs from his analysis when it comes to matters of potential intersection.
I wonder why "my history" was enthusiastically affirmed by the (secular) foremost expert on early American political thought (whose glowing recommendation spurred the SECULAR UNIVERSITY Press of Kansas to publish my book as part of their prestigious American political thought series before even hearing from the other peer reviewer). I also wonder why the other secular peer reviewer -- from Dartmouth -- was even more glowing & enthusiastic about it when his review came in (such that the publisher said that I'd met my "muse"). I wonder why non-Christian scholars from all over the country have affirmed it and invited me to participate in their ACADEMIC -- not religious -- panels or guest lecture at their campus.
Re my interpretation of Calvin: once again, you can't quote Calvin -- you have to quote Beza. a) Why must we take Beza's word for what Calvin believed when Calvin wrote extensively on the issue HIMSELF? Did you ever consider that Beza had an agenda of his own and might want to bolster it by hijacking Calvin's prominence on its behalf? Should people ascribe to you what you actually write in American Creation -- or should they take Jon's word for it if he makes claims on your behalf that contradict what you actually said on the record? b) You accuse me of "cherry-picking" Calvin -- but at least I'm quoting Calvin! I could quote much more. c) How do you explain the statements by Calvin that I quoted (which could be supplemented by nearly a dozen more)? As I said: how about responding to what Calvin himself said?
But back to your "formal objection": you did not answer the question of why one has to hold my religious beliefs in order to accept "my" history. Regardless of their religious beliefs, people may have differences of opinion on whether one should take Calvin at his word. And even at that, the Calvin matter is just one very small part of "my" history. So, I ask again: WHY MUST ONE HOLD MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO ACCEPT "MY" HISTORY?
I never said that Knox was a "random" Calvinist -- I questioned whether he spoke for all "Calvinism in Britain" as you intimated. Nor did I say that Calvinist resistance theory was a "chimera" -- I merely maintain that NOT ALL Calvinists held to it and that there were many who did not in America in the revolutionary period -- hence the importance of Mayhew's seminal sermon.
Like others, you appear to have trouble answering what I actually say and much prefer to deal with straw men arguments that I don't make.
I DO appreciate your partial affirmation of the "bases" that I hit in the article. But my argument does NOT "hinge" on the idea that the colonists were bound to obey Parliament because the king told them to -- that is merely one of several arguments and not, I think, the most important.
I have indeed written much on this site -- but hardly the full argument or full evidence for "my" history. There are more than 3000 citations in my book. Plus, because of the nature of blogs and time constraints, I have only addressed certain aspects/pieces on this site -- whatever questions/issues come up. It is hardly conducive to making an organized, coherent argument/case. That's why people write books and not just blog.
I wonder why "my history" was enthusiastically affirmed by the (secular) foremost expert on early American political thought (whose glowing recommendation spurred the SECULAR UNIVERSITY Press of Kansas to publish my book as part of their prestigious American political thought series before even hearing from the other peer reviewer). I also wonder why the other secular peer reviewer -- from Dartmouth -- was even more glowing & enthusiastic about it when his review came in (such that the publisher said that I'd met my "muse"). I wonder why non-Christian scholars from all over the country have affirmed it and invited me to participate in their ACADEMIC -- not religious -- panels or guest lecture at their campus.
Because you're useful to the secular left? Please, Gregg. Besides, scholars in agreement with each other appealing to each others' authority is circular. Truth is not up for a vote, to consensus. There have been visions, revisions, and re-revisions in history and in historiography, and this blog in particular prefers to argue from the primary texts, not play dueling scholarly authorities, which leads nowhere.
To business:
Re my interpretation of Calvin: once again, you can't quote Calvin -- you have to quote Beza. a) Why must we take Beza's word for what Calvin believed when Calvin wrote extensively on the issue HIMSELF?
I have had this argument with several "Two Kingdom" types--Whose Calvinism Is It Anyway? The answer is that "Calvinism" is an unfair and misleading shorthand. The proper term is "Reformed theology," and that includes dozens more thinkers than John Calvin himself.
That I can cite Calvin's immediate successor, Theodore Beza, to the contrary of Calvin's absolutist interpretation of Romans 13 is not an argument from Beza's authority as much as opening the door to what became the normative view at least in the Anglo-American milieu, Reformed Resistance Theory.
http://www.davekopel.com/Religion/Calvinism.htm
So, I ask again: WHY MUST ONE HOLD MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO ACCEPT "MY" HISTORY?
Because the article in question contains a religious truth claim, what God [and Paul the Apostle] intended Romans 13
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves
to allow or disallow as "just war." I have no horse in the Calvinist race; I can only look at the Puritan revolution of the 1600s in Britain and the American revolution of the century following and conclude that the absolutist interpretation of Romans 13 lost.
To say the wrong side won is above my pay grade--that's a religious opinion.
Like others, you appear to have trouble answering what I actually say and much prefer to deal with straw men arguments that I don't make.
There you go again, Mr. Frazer. My response to your article was from what I could remember before it was put behind the firewall and I was quite fair. You have no response to
As you know, the colonists didn't accept Parliament as a rightful authority--the colonies got their charters from the crown well before the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which established Parliament's power above the king.
So when Gregg says that the colonies were bound to obey Parliament because the king told them to, I don't know if sovereignty is transferable like that. Even a king is accountable to his people and Parliament was in no way accountable to the Americans.
Gregg's argument hinges on this, and that's where I think it falls apart.
except to say it doesn't represent your entire argument. Fair enough, but you decline to defend that part of the argument--leaving the discerning reader to conclude you stipulate that it falls apart.
Otherwise, you have the opportunity to defend that argument right here and now, as well as reveal to the reader the best parts of your thesis that are no longer available over the internet.
The floor remains yours; it's up to you how you want to use it. If arguing instead of making arguments is how you want to spend your time, the time's yours.
Tom Van Dyke,
Re:
Besides, scholars in agreement with each other appealing to each others' authority is circular. Truth is not up for a vote, to consensus. There have been visions, revisions, and re-revisions in history and in historiography, and this blog in particular prefers to argue from the primary texts, not play dueling scholarly authorities, which leads nowhere.
Brilliant.
Gregg, thank you for agreeing with me that the law was the highest authority in England at the time of the American Revolution. It would seem that by agreeing with me on this point, you should also agreeing with my claim that "if the law is the supreme governing authority, then the colonists were only required to obey the king unless and until he required them to do something contrary to the dictates of the law," but instead of agreeing here, you have added the question of interpretation. Before I address that question, let me restate my own question in a more direct manner.
Suppose the law of England contained a clear statement that: "if the king orders a man to be put to death without a trial, then that man is no longer a subject of the king and has the right to defend himself." Now, let's also suppose that a king of England ordered a man to be put to death without a trial. Do you think that the man whose death was so ordered would be justified if he decided to defend himself against the servants of the king?
In regards to your question about interpreting the law, it seems that you are assuming that the authority for interpretation rests with the executive branch, but is it not true in both England and America that the interpretation of the law is reserved to the judicial branch of government? If so, then it would follow that both the king and his subjects were equally bound by the interpretation of the law which was determined by the courts. And if that is the case, then doesn't it also follow that the interpretation of the law given by the court in the cases cited by Wilson was binding on both the king and his subjects?
Thus, your question about interpreting the law only leads us to an analysis of the British court's opinions in regards to the authority of parliament over the colonies of the king. Wilson provided such an analysis in his Considerations, and in order to propose a contrary conclusion, it is necessary for you to provide an analysis which contradicts Wilson's. You have not done this. The most that you have attempted to do is cast aspersions against Wilson and to claim that he was mistaken on an inconsequential detail. Can you provide us with an analysis that actually contradicts Wilson's or not? If not, then Wilson's conclusion stands unrefuted.
In regards to Romans 13, let me just briefly point out that John Calvin's opinion is not authoritative. Calvin was just another man expressing his view of Scripture. Having listened to several of your Sunday School lessons, I am fairly confident that you would agree with me that Calvin's view of Romans 13 should only be accepted if it is consistent with the rest of the Bible. Personally, I don't think that Calvin's view in this area meets that criteria, and I have written previously to explain that the Bible recognizes a right of resistance. I have compiled my arguments on this topic into a single article which is available at: http://www.increasinglearning.com/we-the-people.html
I entered this discussion simply to ask you, Tom, not to cast aspersions on my work without reading it or explaining specifically the basis for your sweeping claim that one has to share my religious beliefs to accept "my" history. I had no intention of retyping the article that, unfortunately, many did not have a chance to read and that some clearly did not read very carefully or fully.
The Romans 13 argument is only one relatively small part of my overall argument in the article re "just war." If that's all that you have to agree with to accept "my" history, then my question stands about the legitimacy of your claim. There is a LOT more that does not require adhering to my or any religious beliefs than what does. The article was published in a non-religious, secular journal: the Journal of Military Ethics. There were multiple revisions demanded by the editors. If you think that the editors would publish an article that merely appealed to religious belief, then I hope that you encounter them some day and try to pass something off on them.
Re my straw man statement: I referred to what you mentioned in your post -- one need not see the rest of the article because I did not refer to anything else re the straw man claim.
Re the scholars who've endorsed my book: one of the two peer reviewers is on the left and the other is on the right. My book has been positively reviewed by left and right, secular and religious scholars alike. The two negative reviews were from leftists. It surprises me that you express such disdain for scholars. I'm sure these particular distinguished scholars would not appreciate you questioning their integrity by suggesting that they only approve of work which is "useful" to some pre-determined end of theirs. Knowing their character, I am about equally offended on their behalf and embarrassed for you. I wonder: did you ever go to graduate school? You seem to share the same caricatured view of academics that those who've never been to graduate school hold.
And I was not supporting my thesis by citing dueling scholars -- I mentioned the scholars in response to your false charge that one must share my religious beliefs in order to accept "my" history. I provided evidence that one need not hold to my religious beliefs in order to accept "my" history. This is a claim that you still have not answered, but rather talked around. In fact, you've given another reason that someone would accept "my" history -- because they find it "useful." So, by your own testimony (albeit false), your charge is incorrect. You have given one specific example -- which doesn't really require agreeing with my religious beliefs, either -- hardly a convincing case for a sweeping statement regarding an article of 11,713 words.
As for primary sources, you refuse to read my book with thousands of them. No, I do not retype my entire book in this blog, so perhaps I haven't been persuasive to some. But shouldn't you show some restraint regarding sweeping statements about what you have not read?
I am not going to retype my article here. No doubt most are not really interested in it and others would be interested only to try to find ways to attack me. If anyone is truly interested, I'm sure your local library could get a copy via inter-library loan. I am confident that it will stand up to honest historical analysis.
Mr. Fortenberry:
I suggest that you get the article via inter-library loan to see that I deal at length with Wilson's use/abuse of court decisions. It seems a bit bizarre that the guy who criticized me for saying off the cuff that Jefferson used scissors (instead of a straight blade or razor or whatever) to cut up the Gospels would accuse me of mentioning "inconsequential detail."
I never said or suggested that Calvin's view is authoritative in general, but it would seem to be so FOR CALVINISM -- wouldn't it?? That was the context of our dispute.
Blogger Gregg Frazer said...
Mr. Fortenberry:
I suggest that you get the article via inter-library loan to see that I deal at length with Wilson's use/abuse of court decisions.
...
I never said or suggested that Calvin's view is authoritative in general, but it would seem to be so FOR CALVINISM -- wouldn't it?? That was the context of our dispute.
As a point of order, Gregg, arguing with Bill or meself is just arguing. So is pointing at an internet curtain and saying your arguments are behind it somewhere.
As for "Calvinism," again, it's not actually called Calvinism, even by "Calvinists." As you know, it calls itself the"reformed faith." John Calvin was neither a prophet nor a pope. He was some guy, succeeded by a bunch of other guys with equal standing.
The main page of American Creation is always at your disposal, Dr. Frazer, as our headline "Guest Blogger." You needn't trifle with our comment boxes.
You should be able to state your case in new words without infringing on your own copyrights, and without intimating that your critics have misunderstood you. Both Mr. Fortenbergerstein and meself have invested much time in your thesis, much more than many or most of your supporters and admirers.
You do us--and yourself--an injustice that we have read you carelessly or without all due care. You are taken quite seriously hereabouts.
As a point of order: I did not point to an internet curtain as you claim, I suggested the best I could do, which is to encourage interested persons to use their local library -- hardly an impassable barrier in the 21st century. I foolishly thought that I was being generous when I sent Jon the free link to my article (which was good for 50 accesses); I guess no good deed goes unpunished.
Why, exactly, am I to be lectured about Calvinism for using the term -- when I used it in response to YOUR comment about "Calvinism in Britain?" You may bring up the term, but I am to be corrected for using it in response to YOUR use? Hmmmmmm
I just spent two hours giving a synopsis of my article, but switched to check something before submitting it and it was gone. This is time that I do not have (I am writing another book and summer is precious time), but it is important to me to get to the bottom of Mr. Van Dyke's charge that my history is synonymous with my religious beliefs and that one cannot accept "my" history without agreeing with my religious beliefs. As a historian, this is a serious charge -- and one that he has yet to support with the exception of the relatively small matter (in the article) of my view of Romans 13. [even there, one need not agree w/ my religious beliefs, but that's another argument]
Speaking of hiding behind an internet curtain, Tom, you cannot make this sweeping accusation and then say that you can't remember why you're making it. If you don't remember the evidence for the claim, DON'T MAKE IT!
I will now take two more precious hours to lay out the argument in the article -- because it is that important to me that other readers know that I do real history. I don't know how many are paying attention, but my reputation means something to me. This time it will be more brief -- sorry. In parentheses, I will note the criteria of "just war" theory that the section applies to.
The article starts with demonstrating from their own pronouncements that America was not a separate country, but that the Americans were English subjects under the authority of the Crown. This they maintained through/past the beginning of the Revolution and even nearly a year after Bunker Hill. [declared by a legitimate/proper authority?]
then discussion of the fact that Americans enjoyed an unprecedented level of freedom and, specifically, freedom from taxation -- and the fact that the British only asked the Americans to cover part of the cost of protecting them -- and the fact that the people in Britain paid up to 3000% higher taxes than the Americans [just cause? tyranny?]
when the Americans could not evade taxes by smuggling, they responded with violence -- and were the only New World colonists to do so; is punishing criminal behavior and violence "tyranny" or a central function of government? does the U.S. govt. today allow smuggling? mob violence?; Parliament made concessions, but the Americans never did [just cause? tyranny?]
then a discussion of the central argument: "no taxation without representation":
colonial writers/pamphlets/resolutions never pointed to a specific law or part of the British Constitution; Patriot lawyer Daniel Dulany admitted that it "hath not been introduced by any particular law" [just cause? tyranny?]
as representative of the colonial position on "no taxation," I then spend a lot of time/space evaluating James Wilson's case law argument in the famous "Considerations" pamphlet; I show through quoting the actual decisions that Wilson cites them inappropriately and twists them to fit his position and contradicts his own position in different sections of his pamphlet; I also show from the opinions of the jurists that Wilson himself appeals to as definitive that his interpretation is incorrect and manipulated [just cause?]
the argument then turns to the matter of "representation" -- what does it mean?; the colonists and English law had different standards for representation; those of you enamored with English law as supreme will be happy to support the British and to recognize that the standard for representation must be that of the law, so you'll agree that the British view was determinative -- not the view of one set of colonies [just cause?]
I also point out that taxation without representation must not be inherently tyrannical, as the U.S. government today taxes the people of its territories and the INHABITANTS OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL without giving them representation in the legislature [just cause? tyranny?]
I show from their own pronouncements that they demanded all of the rights and privileges of Englishmen, but were unwilling to meet the responsibilities/duties and pay the expenses of that stature [just cause?]
I also show that the Americans did NOT WANT representation in Parliament [just cause?]
then there is a sizable section on the reporting of events during the period in the colonies and the massive propaganda effort by Sam Adams et al to misinform the American people and convince them that tyranny was at hand when it was not. In fact, the reason that the illegal anti-government militia units showed up at Lexington Green was in response to a fanciful/mythical set of "atrocities" supposedly committed by the British -- but that did not, in fact, occur. [just cause? tyranny?]
Summation: does a nation have the right to tax its inhabitants? does a nation have an inherent right to punish violent acts and vandalism? does a nation have an inherent right to prevent professedly antigovernment groups that have engaged in illegal and violent activity from stockpiling weapons and mobilizing armed forces? is it "tyrannical" for a nation to engage in these actions? If so, has there ever been a nation that was not tyrannical? What is the nature of representation? whose definition should adhere in a nation: that prescribed in law or that of a disaffected and interested minority? In case of disagreement, what are the appropriate means of seeking remedy? is disobedience based on lack of representation justified even though representation is not sought and not desired? Does a "tyrannical" government make multiple concessions -- particularly when the opposition makes none?
Just War criteria:
#1: declaration by legitimate/proper authority
By their own admission, the American leaders were under the authority of Great Britain and were English subjects. So, they were not sovereign authorities and they were not authorized in their charters or anywhere in British law to declare war. the only basis on which they would have such authority was theoretical (Locke, Vindiciae, etc.) -- but not lawful. This is the one section in which I dealt with Romans 13 -- the only evidence Tom has put forward for his outrageous claim against me. That religious section is a grand total of four paragraphs in an 11,700 word article. And it's only there because of the great influence of the pulpits in promoting and recruiting for the Revolution -- hardly as a central argument [how could it be in a secular journal?; they would not have published it).
#2: just cause
You can see that most of the article addressed this question. The colonists acted on false information; the Americans were violent and aggressive in the years leading to the war, their "constitutional" claim was invalid, and their illegal militia provoked exchange of fire (whoever fired first) by blocking legally constituted authorities from enforcing law. The only basis for a just cause claim is Locke's theoretical justification.
#3: last resort
The Americans never conceded or compromised. The British did, responding to some of their petitions (repealing Stamp Act & Townshend Acts, for example). To avoid conflict, the British laid a heavy tax burden on the English people at home for the protection of the colonists. What else could they have done?: A) they had access to British courts to make their "constitutional" argument; B) they could have lobbied Parliament -- Parliament listened to Franklin when PA sent him and to West Indies sugar planters; C) they could have contributed to campaigns of sympathetic MPs or could have run for Parliament themselves as English subjects [in fact, five Americans were elected to Parliament in by-elections from 1763 to 1775, with one serving for 7 years]; D) they could have taxed themselves to provide some of the money for their own defense in keeping with their desired level of independence; E) the colonial govts. could have denounced acts of violence and vandalism, punished those responsible, reimbursed property owners and punished smugglers -- this would have made the "Intolerable Acts" and moving trials to royal courts unnecessary; F) they could have used more boycotts -- the boycotts were extremely effective and a key reason Parliament repealed some acts; G) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and several other Commonwealth countries gained their independence from Great Britain without rebellion -- so clearly appeal to arms was not the last resort.
#4: just intent
The side responsible for starting the war cannot have the goals meant by the "just intent" criterion (restoration of peace as the ultimate goal and not revenge, conquest, or economic gain). The primary motivation of many was economic -- to evade taxes -- the proximate motivation of many, including those who showed up at Lexington Green, was revenge for supposed "atrocities" that the British had not, in fact, committed. Also, the pro-Revolution clergy turned the conflict into a crusade -- the cause of God against Satan and hell. How can one negotiate or compromise with Satan?
#5: noncombatant immunity
Though the American Revolution has a reputation for being a "clean" war with little or no violence to non-participants, that is not at all the case. The revolutionaries confiscated the property of Loyalists, threatened them with physical violence, beat them, imprisoned them, poured hot tar on their bodies, and even hanged them [here was the origin of the term "lynching" (after a "patriot" colonel named Charles Lynch)]
#6-8: limited objectives; proportionate means; reasonable hope for success
The Revolution probably met these three criteria.
For "just war" theorists, a just war must meet ALL of the standards -- or at least the first four having to do with the start of the war. The American Revolution did not meet any of the first four.
NOW I ask readers who went through this: what does this history have to do with my religious beliefs -- or anyone's religious beliefs, if you don't know mine? Is this case "synonymous with" my religious beliefs? If so, how, Tom?
I don't even care whether people agree with my case or not, I just want it recognized that the case is NOT dependent on my religious beliefs or whether anyone agrees with them or not. It is a historical argument based on solid history and published by a journal that would not publish a religious argument.
Isn't it Tom?
I'm going to gloss over your outrage stuff and keep it lean. You wrote:
Those who claim that authority for themselves are antinomian and make themselves the law. In Romans 13, God gave authority to PEOPLE -- to agents of His; in the language of Romans 13: to "ministers of God" and "servants of God." In the Old Testament, to "shepherds" and "anointed" and "My servant." As Calvin rightly says: "even if the punishment of unbridled tyranny is the Lord's vengeance, we are not to imagine that it is we ourselves who have been called upon to inflict it. All that has been assigned to us is to obey and suffer." Calvin also said: "if you go on to infer that only just governments are to be repaid by obedience, your reasoning is stupid."
Which is a theological opinion of Romans 13, as is "Calvin rightfully says," which is theology not history. [BF mine.] If you invoke the Bible--and your "rightful" interpretation of it--it's you who open the door of conflating history and religious belief.
Here you correctly note that The colonies were putatively under "the Crown"; however, when you write they were under "Great Britain," I do not agree, for reasons previously given [for the 3rd time now]:
I liked Gregg's arguments, he hit all the bases. As you know, the colonists didn't accept Parliament as a rightful authority--the colonies got their charters from the crown well before the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which established Parliament's power above the king.
So when Gregg says that the colonies were bound to obey Parliament because the king told them to, I don't know if sovereignty is transferable like that. Even a king is accountable to his people and Parliament was in no way accountable to the Americans.
Gregg's argument hinges on this, and that's where I think it falls apart.
When I originally made this argument on the other thread, I added
As far back as Aquinas, "usurpers" have no legitimacy even under Romans 13. I think it no coincidence "usurp" appears 3 times in the Declaration, aimed at the king
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations
as well as the parliament
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
...as well as an "abdication"
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
which is how Britain characterized chasing the rightful king James II out of the country in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Parliament installing the compliant William and Mary.
Therefore, re "just war," the forces of Parliament and/or the self-delegitimized Crown made war on the colonists [they didn't invade Britain]. The question then becomes only one of self-defense. Further, the Continental Congress was indeed a legitimate authority to conduct that defense against a "usurping" Parliament.
[As for your #5, Mark David Hall drew the necessary distinction between Jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The war against Hitler was a just war; firebombing Dresden's civilians, less clear.]
I'll tuck this here rather than attempting my own blow by blow, the locus being not 1776, but 1775.
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/was-the-american-revolution-a-just-war
Back to the Revolution. Did it meet the essential criteria? One way to get at this is to consider the experience arguments of colonists at the time. On July 6, 1775 – a year before the Declaration of Independence – the Second Continental Congress issued what has become known as the Declaration on the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms (“the Declaration”). Penned primarily by Pennsylvania’s John Dickinson with assistance from Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration was written just weeks after the British attacks at Lexington and Concord. It lays out a rationale for self-defense that is completely aligned with just war thinking. Indeed, the colonists beseech London to not provoke “the calamities civil war;” there is no talk of independence.
The Declaration chronicles the context: by 1775 the colonists had seen a steady erosion of their liberties, to the point that a citizen might have British troops (or mercenaries) quartered in his home against his will; he might be shipped off to England or Canada for an alleged crime without facing a trial by jury of his peers; and his business was slowly strangled by nearly a decade’s worth of spiraling taxes (“acts”). The colonies were under naval blockade and Boston was effectively under martial law; both Massachusetts and Virginia had seen skirmishes and the British seemed to be stoking barbaric Indian raids on the frontier.
The Declaration begins with a question about legitimate authority: does God grant to government “unbounded authority…never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive” or is it “instituted to promote the welfare of mankind”? This really is the critical question, because it underscores the Christian worldview of most colonists: justice is a cardinal virtue within a divinely-ordained moral order of right and wrong.
The Declaration goes on to argue for a just cause (“in defence of the freedom that is our birthright….for the protection of our property…against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms”) and for the colonists’ right intent (“We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest”).
Seizure of property, martial law, a blockade, and now bloodshed: the colonists were convinced that self-defense was a proportionate, last resort alternative to “submission to tyranny” and “voluntary slavery.” They also warned, “Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable” (likelihood of success).
In short, this Declaration—written primarily by Quaker-inspired John Dickinson—clearly accords with the Christian just war tradition. It provides us with not only a window for considering the events that followed, particularly in 1776, but also as a principled approach to dealing with today’s tough policy issues where “love my neighbor” meets policy regarding the responsibilities of government and the use of force.
This article was originally published in the Washington Post's Georgetown/On Faith blog, a collaborative page that features views on faith and its impact on the news.
Another fine diversion from my first two paragraphs. It's nice to know that no one will hold you accountable, huh?
But, you are right, of course, as always. My using the word "rightly" in one sentence of an 11,700 word article makes the whole thing "synonymous with my religious beliefs" and makes the whole article impossible to accept without sharing my religious beliefs. I should have seen that. Thank you for the correction.
I won't encumber the site again until, after many months, I forget again how frustrating it is at this site and return to simply ask someone to treat scholarly, peer-reviewed work with respect. It won't be you that I ask, though; I've learned my lesson. You may say whatever you want and make whatever charges suit your fancy. Apparently, no one here is going to hold you accountable.
I would pay money to see your "work" peer-reviewed somewhere that won't print it unless it meets certain standards.
Have a nice day.
ask someone to treat scholarly, peer-reviewed work with respect.
Really, Gregg? Really? The authority card? Then the ad hom?
You were paid more respect than you gave here: Nobody called you lazy or dishonest. You've taken up over 4000 words, your effort, our time. You've had plenty of opportunity to speak, to make your case.
You still do. To business:
You did not establish Parliament as the rightful governing authority nor disproved the colonist contention that the Crown, via stuff like the Prohibitory Act of 1775
“...throws thirteen colonies out of the royal protection, levels all distinctions, and makes us independent in spite of our supplications and entreaties... It may be fortunate that the act of independency should come from the British Parliament rather than the American Congress.” [John Adams]
The king threw the colonies to Parliament, out of his protection, to an unlawful authority the colonists had no duty to obey. The parliament made war on them in ways such as the naval blockade of American ports.
But sovereignty lies with the people, not the crown, who is only entrusted with it. And the crown has no warrant before God or man to "transfer" the people's sovereignty to an unaccountable [and often hostile] body such as Parliament.
As for the rest of your "just war" arguments, I will hide behind this gentleman's skirts for the moment in the interest of readability, as he addresses each of your #numbered points. I think he rebuts in part if not refudiates in the whole your charge the Revolution was not "just."
Good day.
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/was-the-american-revolution-a-just-war
I don't care whether you agree with my arguments demonstrating that the American Revolution was not a just war. I haven't even presented the evidence here. I've asked interested persons to get the article where the case was made. Anyone who is not interested need not be bothered.
You say "You did not establish Parliament as the rightful governing authority nor disproved the colonist contention that the Crown, via stuff like the Prohibitory Act of 1775" -- you are quite right; I did not do that here on this site. I did not come to the site to convince anyone about the Revolution; I tried to give people access to the article for that purpose. I am sorry that the offer backfired.
I came to this site simply and only to ask you to retract your false charge that "my" history was synonymous with my religious beliefs. You have avoided that throughout -- producing diversion after diversion as you regularly do when you cannot, or do not want to, answer something.
The only example that you've given is a statement I made about Romans 13, which is in a miniscule portion of the article and not even offered as evidence for anything other than what was taught from some pulpits. It was not central to my case. I have laid out the outline of the subjects covered in the article. You are right; I did not prove them to be true in this blog -- I did not try.
In fact, let's say that I'm wrong in every claim, quote, and analysis in the article -- my question remains: WHAT EVIDENCE DO I PRESENT OR CLAIMS DO I MAKE THAT REQUIRE YOU TO AGREE WITH MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN ORDER TO CONSIDER MY CASE?:
Colonial pronouncements? Court cases relied upon by Wilson? Actions of the colonists? Actions of the British? Colonial propaganda? Legality of "no taxation without representation?" The nature of representation and whether the colonists desired it? Alternatives the colonists could have pursued? English law vs. Lockean theory? In which of these did I interject my religious beliefs?
Answer this one question (the one in bold type that I've asked in each of my entries) and you'll be done with me. That is all I came here for to begin with.
Professor Frazer,
You wrote,
I don't care whether you agree with my arguments demonstrating that the American Revolution was not a just war. I haven't even presented the evidence here.
Is that not what you did with your four posts dated June 30?
You wrote,
I did not come to the site to convince anyone about the Revolution.
And yet you argued your position in your June 30 posts.
It is therefore understandable that Mr. Van Dyke would state,
You did not establish Parliament as the rightful governing authority nor disproved the colonist contention that the Crown, via stuff like the Prohibitory Act of 1775
“...throws thirteen colonies out of the royal protection, levels all distinctions, and makes us independent in spite of our supplications and entreaties... It may be fortunate that the act of independency should come from the British Parliament rather than the American Congress.” [John Adams]
The king threw the colonies to Parliament, out of his protection, to an unlawful authority the colonists had no duty to obey. The parliament made war on them in ways such as the naval blockade of American ports.
But sovereignty lies with the people, not the crown, who is only entrusted with it. And the crown has no warrant before God or man to "transfer" the people's sovereignty to an unaccountable [and often hostile] body such as Parliament.
You have not addressed Mr. Van Dyke's argument other than to write,
You say "You did not establish Parliament as the rightful governing authority nor disproved the colonist contention that the Crown, via stuff like the Prohibitory Act of 1775" -- you are quite right; I did not do that here on this site. I did not come to the site to convince anyone about the Revolution ...
This is hardly a rebuttal.
Bill Fortenberry provided a link to his article here:
http://www.increasinglearning.com/we-the-people.html
And Tom Van Dyke referenced the article here, twice on this thread:
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/was-the-american-revolution-a-just-war
Eric Patterson, “Was the American Revolution a Just War?” who draws a different conclusion than you. Patterson is Dean of the Senator A. Willis Robertson School of Government at Regent University and a Research Fellow at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs at Georgetown University.
While on this thread, http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2015/06/frazer-on-whether-american-revolution.html, Mr. Van Dyke referenced Eric Patterson & Nathan Gill, “The Declaration of the United Colonies: America's First Just War Statement,” Journal of Military Ethics, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2015, pp. 7-34.
... which supports Just War theory. What is your rebuttal to these essays? Mr. Van Dyke, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Patterson and Mr. Gill have presented data counter to your claim. Is it not your duty as a professional historian to consider that data?
Tophet,
I did not present the EVIDENCE for my argument/case in my June 30 posts; I merely presented the categories and areas that are covered in my article in order to show that they have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I simply listed what issues are covered in the article -- I did not make the arguments or present the evidence.
Why? As I've said from the beginning, I only posted here in order to ask Mr. Van Dyke to back up his charge or back off of his charge that my history is synonymous with my religious beliefs and that one cannot accept it without agreeing to my religious beliefs. Toward that end, I listed the subjects covered in my article (where I DO give the evidence) and asked which of those required agreement with my religious beliefs. I tried to make that available to you all, but the publisher shut it down after 50 people accessed it.
My statement that you say was hardly a rebuttal was not intended to be a rebuttal of his point. You say that I have not addressed his argument -- I never intended to do so. He has never addressed my original question and my sole reason for posting. His argument is a lengthy diversion which I do not have time to accommodate.
As I've said several times, those who are interested in the argument and evidence for it can acquire the article via their library/inter-library loan. I read Patterson's article before it was published; we were on a panel together. As I pointed out to him in person and in writing on his draft, the problem with his article is that it assumes without proof that the claims of the colonists were correct and historically accurate. They were not. It assumes that Wilson's analysis was correct; it assumes that the propaganda spewed by Sam Adams was accurate; it assumes that Lockean theory trumps English law; and makes other assumptions that Americans want to believe because they want to justify the Revolution.
I'm sorry, but if you want to evaluate my argument/evidence in comparison to his, you'll have to get the article.
I apologize to those who have wasted time reading our exchanges -- and I understand that you would be more interested in the question of whether the American Revolution was a just war or not than in whether Mr. Van Dyke made a false accusation against my work. But my sole reason for participating here was to ask him to support that claim about my article or retract it. That remains my sole reason for posting.
Post a Comment