Did The Us Have A Right To Seperate?

[Crusader_4]

I was thinking and looking at the American Revolution and i have come to the conclusion that by America seperating from Canada (Canada is older) it was not just. As a matter of fact since Canada is the older brother of the united states and they succeded from the British Empire without fair reason not only should they begin to pay Britian tribute but Canada as well. Lets take a look:

Taxes: Okay i can see why people dont like taxes but to not pay them and start a war...and i can even see the motive behind not wanting to pay taxes in which you have no little say....but the 13 colonies were just that COLONIES. they were to help the whole of the British Empire not just themselves. As well

Representation: Well i can see how you feel but had you grown more and sent contiunally more delegates it could have been worked out

Land: Look the Natives deserved the Land from the Quebec Act they fought hard and deserved it. Besides what do they have now? (who really got ripped off?)

[Aloysius]

no taxation without representation! :nanny:

[picchick]

It was not only taxation though. It was about freedom. Among other things, soldiers would house themselves wherever they wanted.

[Aloysius]

well, let's clarify what we're talking

did they have the legal right to seperate?
did they have the moral right to seperate?

the answer to the first one, i'm not sure
and maybe it's just the fact that i was taught history in america but i'd say the second one i would say yes

[Iacobus]

Okay the APB is here.

It wasn't about taxes. The Conoliests were spoil rotten little brats from the peroid of Slautary Neglect. When the British fought and won the French and Indian war they imposed taxes (hereto unheard of) on the settlers to pay for the debt aquired by the war.

The soon to be American's disagreed with paying taxes to fund the army. They thought that they had served in the army, they bleed and died, to defend England. Before this point of time the British and the Colonists were getting along well.

There was also issues like Britian's adhereance to the mertilisitc policies in the Nav Acts. The Brits didn't want to have the New World grow and be an equal in the Empire. The New World was to help England grow. Any trade had to go through England and the Yankee traders had to pay the stiff duties. So the traders ignored that and started trading without England's blessing.

Also, there was the Demarcation Line of 1763. This put some anger into the Colonies. After removing the French the settlers thought that, now without a threat, they could cross and settle west of the Applician Mountians. The Demarcation Line of 1763 drew a line at the western most boarders of the colonies and said "No futher."

The Colonies sought rep in Palament. But the reply was that they were afford "virtual rep." The didn't have a vote or a deleget no matter their size. They were reped only by the members of Palament regardless of how different, big, or powerful the colony was.

And C4, proir to ending the FAI War Canada was "New France." So if you care to tell me how Canada is older as a "British" being do tell. Moreover, the first prement European colony was Jamestown in VA. And if you are going back prior to the Europeans, the Native Americans may have been in Canada first, but it appears that Vikings and Ancient Egyptions (tobacoo) were here long before 1492.

Also remeber the battle of Lexington and Conorcde. The British were moving on a raid to raid an arms warehouse and meet with minute men on the defensive. The British took the 1st strike by lunching a raid.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 21 2004, 02:01 PM'] well, let's clarify what we're talking

did they have the legal right to seperate?
did they have the moral right to seperate?

the answer to the first one, i'm not sure
and maybe it's just the fact that i was taught history in america but i'd say the second one i would say yes [/quote]
Al I just posted a breif outlay of what caused the revolt. For more see the reasons in the DoI.

As to them having or not having the legal or moral right to break? I think they had the moral and legal right to fight the British when the war started. But as to them breaking away... probly had the moral right.

[track2004]

[quote]Taxes: Okay i can see why people dont like taxes but to not pay them and start a war...and i can even see the motive behind not wanting to pay taxes in which you have no little say....but the 13 colonies were just that COLONIES. they were to help the whole of the British Empire not just themselves. As well [/quote]

The Americans (colonies) paid fewer taxes than most other English (even the ones on the island) and nobody really got a say in taxes anyway.

[quote]It was not only taxation though. It was about freedom. Among other things, soldiers would house themselves wherever they wanted. [/quote]

The US was the first country to not let soldiers stay in homes. In England the military would regurarly stay in home, eat people's food and all of that. Americans were winey and used any excuse to start the war. Our textbooks our a little baised, but heck, even if it wasn't fair, I'm sure glad it happened.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

The real question is: did Canada have a right not to go along with the US in succession?

[drewmeister2]

I can't agree with you. Although we may have done some things wrong in the past, you have to look and see what maybe the British were doing to the colonies. We don't owe Canada anything, nor will we give anything to you. If anything, we would give it to England. They are responsible for us being here ultimately, not you. And we still wont give anything to England, because these are things that happened a few hundred years ago. Forgive us if we did something wrong, and move on. Don't hold grudges for a few hundred years. Besides, there is no reason why taxes should be raised so we can give money to either of you. What the founding fathers did isn't what we did, and we shouldn't have to pay for their sins (which really aren't sins anyway). God bless.

[Crusader_4]

I would say yes they had a right not too go along. They saw the war as unnesccairy. As well they were doing quite well with Britian. As well in that time although not perfect but Catholics were being treated the best out of anywhere in the British Empire. Hence why the Catholic bishops at the time in Canada did not support the Rebels because doing so they realized that their rights as practicing Catholics and religious freedoms would most likely be taken away. Since particulary in Quebec the British government was VERY good to the French CAtholics.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]I would say yes they had a right not too go along. They saw the war as unnesccairy. As well they were doing quite well with Britian.[/quote]

LOL

I was just kidding.

[Crusader_4]

hahah okay Raphael. lol sorry.

[Socrates]

America seperating from Canada?? We were never part of Canada!!

People have a right to make their own laws and decide how to govern themselves rather than being controlled by the interests of a foriegn power overseas. American colonists had lived here for generations, yet were being denied the rights of Englishmen by the British government, having no say in how they were taxed or ruled.

Don't tread on me!

(Canadians! )

[Aloysius]

Canada is leading in the evil race (kinda like the space-race, see who can start legally persecuting Christianity first)

[Guest JeffCR07]

If one constantly seeks to respect the Authority of God, "revolution" in the strictest sense is not an option. From a moral standpoint, I do not think the Americans had a right to revolt.

[Crusader_4]

Aloyousious i do not disagree with you at all in regards to the liberal attitueds in Canada which i do not support for a second however at the same time please stay on topic to the main gist of the thread.

[Paladin D]

Wait wait wait, the US seperated from Canada? I never heard of this...

Plus, I thought the US was older than Canada.

[Aloysius]

Jeff, refer to the Catechism to see the criteria for a revolution. Ironmonk posted it once, i don't feel like lookin for that... it's late and i havta get up early to go to Latin Mass

[MorphRC]

Any war against the british is a just war

[Guest JeffCR07]

Aloyisius, I am very familiar with the catechism in this regards. If one actually searches the Catechism for a teaching on "revolution" it cannot be found.

I believe what you are referring to is the following, as it is the most closely related to the issue at hand:

[quote]2243 Armed [i]resistance[/i] to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.[/quote]

Please note, the emphasis on resistance is [u]not[/u] added by myself, but is actually found in the Catechism.

I would advise all people participating in this discussion to read not only the above quote, but the entire entry on "The duty of citizens" in the catechism, which spans from section 2238 to section 2243.

Understanding the whole context of the Church's teaching on the matter, one can see that all people are called to humbly submit to the authority of their government, respecting that, ultimately, all authority is God's and that governments and sovereigns are merely allowed to exercise that authority via God's Permissive, not His Active, Will.

As section 2242 highlights, refusing obedience to civil authorities is mandatory in instances in which the authority is asking the citizen to break the Moral Law. It is unacceptable, however, in any other case.

Finally, section 2243 explains that armed [i]resistance[/i] is permissible in rare cases.

Let us now consider this issue. It is clear that the catechism italicises the word "resistance" to let us know that no bending or warping of the meaning is acceptable. "Revolution," that is, the deposing of a government, is a completely different thing than resisting the government. One can resist, even with recourse to arms, a government that is trying to force the breaking of the moral law without actually deposing that same government.

Perhaps the following outline on the duty of citizens will help:

1.) "Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God" (CCC, section 2238)

2.) Citizens are to submit to authority, and are co-responsible with that authority to uphold the common good (see CCC, sections 2239 & 2240)

3.) Refusing obedience to Civil Authorities is only acceptable when said authorities are asking one to break the moral law. Temporal inconveniences and governmental inefficiency do not fulfill the above. Thus it is said in CCC, section 2242:

[quote]When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel. [/quote]

4.) Armed [i]Resistance[/i] is only permissible if the above stated 5 conditions are met. It is clear that usurping a government is not resistance, but revolution, and in no way can one be considered to be "regarding those in authority as representatives of God" when that person is casting those same persons in authority down.

Thus, I maintain, as supported by the Catechism, that Revolution is not a just or moral course of action, and that Catholics should submit to the established authority in all issues in which they can possibly sumbit. When said authorities attempt to make a catholic break the Moral Law, the catholic should humbly explain that they will not oblige. If the government attempts to force the issue, and the 5 requirements are met, it is permissible for a catholic to resort to arms in their resistance. This use of arms is strictly for resisting to the specific instances in which the government is attempting to coerce a breaking of the Moral Law, and for nothing else. Thus, revolution is absolutely immoral.

I hope this helps,

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

Edited August 22, 2004 by JeffCR07