The Second American Revolution
Imagine the following hypothetical scenario:
In 1856, a group of American Blacks convened secretly in Baltimore, Maryland. Made up of some free-born citizens, but mostly runaway slaves, the meeting discussed the prospect a violent, full-scale revolution by Black Americans against Southern slaveholders and the American government in general. The Dred Scott ruling, the persistence of slavery, and the continued legally sanctioned oppression by Whites over Blacks (free or not) made violent resistance unavoidable. Utilizing contacts throughout the nation, this small band was soon able to draw tens of thousands of Black men to its banner, freeing slaves (often while killing the masters) who then voluntarily joined the growing revolution. The Federal Government responded, but, like their predecessors at Lexington and Concord, the rebellion was able to survive early setbacks and ultimately turn the tide of the war. By 1862, the second American Revolution, this time not justified by “taxation without representation” but by freeing an entire people whose bodies were property and whose lives were governed by the whip and chain, had toppled the US government.
Assume that the conflict was fought generally in accord with prevailing standards for jus in bellum at that time period. Would such a revolution been just? Why, or why not?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “The Second American Revolution”
Of course it would be morally and legally justifable. Taxation and religious freedom versus one human owning and forced labor on another human. The segragation and Jim Crow situation doesn’t have the same justification, but also would be morally justified – South Africa.
“Assume that the conflict was fought generally in accord with prevailing standards for jus in bellum at that time period”
That sentence is key, so the answer is yes.
Of course revolution would have been justified. If you justify revolution because of taxes, it’s absurd to deny the justification in the case of your race being treated literally as domestic animals.
As for “just”, well, it depends how they went about it and the end result. Like Babaganoosh said, it would have to conform to at least some rules of decency. They couldn’t just kill every white person. If they were to win the revolution, they couldn’t enslave the white population. Like the Sunni repression of Shiites, the Shiites stop being victims the moment they prove that they are willing to be equally brutal and evil to the Sunnis as the Sunnis were to them.
I agree with all of the previous commenters. Definitely would have been a just cause, and a revolution itself would have been just if fought according to prevailing standards.
Where is the superdestoyer and Upinsmoke crowd to play Devils Advocate …LOL.
Rudi, I doubt even LAURA would have it in her to say that slaves rising in revolution against their oppressors isn’t justified. Well, maybe if the slaves were Muslim….
Lynx,
I know you were mostly snarking there but it actually brings up a good point. In your earlier comment you wrote:
Implicit in that comment (and I agree with this) is that revolutions are just when the revolutionaries really are fighting to liberate and establish a just society. But if they are liberating in order to make themselves the oppressers, then they are not just.
That has a lot of implications that are important to consider when you hear debates about “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” A terrorist might be using violence to help unseat an oppressive govt, but we judge him to be a terrorist because we don’t believe that he would replace the oppressive govt with a just one.
And I thought from the post itself i wouldn’t get a chance to play devil’s advocate, but thanks CS…
I think we are all comfortable with the general distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists is the ‘just’ness of their proposed governement. However you’ve really just restated the question because who gets to decide what a ‘just’ form of government is and is not? Now we are left with the eririly similar “One man’s justice is another man’s oppression.” To apply that to the current Islamic issues, to a large number of the people we call terrorists, justice can only come through Sharia, validateing them as revolutionaries instead of terrorists. You sneaky moral relatavist CS!
Kevin H,
Good point. I keep coming back in my mind to the thought that there will eventually have to be a consensus in the international community to accept the ideas of the Enlightenment as a foundation for international law. Certainly not necessarily the exact interpretation of it those principles that our Founding Fathers used, but to find the core elements that can be translated to different cultures to produce a just society that abides by natural law.
I don’t think mankind is nearly evolved enough to do this (we’re still too nationalistic and untrusting of world governance, and I think that there are many cultures that aren’t compatible with our ideals of just governance. Is my thinking an example of American exceptionalism? Possibly, but I can’t completely put aside this bias.
And I think that there is justification for my way of thinking. Consider, for example, that it’s probably not the majority of people in Muslim countries who wish to live under a theocracy based on Sharia law. It’s probably not even a majority among those who sympathize with jihadist terrorists. Many of those who lend tacit or implicit support are siding with them because they oppose the foreign intervention or oppose regimes that are allied with the West. So, in that sense, the jihadists are not “just” in their cause because they aren’t promoting what the majority of “their” people want. They wish to overthrow the oppressers in order to oppress.
On the other hand, it’s like the question I posed in another comment thread recently: “What exactly should be done if the hens choose to put the fox in charge of the henhouse?” In other words, if the majority in a country or region really do choose a form of governance that doesn’t allow them freedom, is that ‘just’ because it was chosen by the majority? And if not, then it’s questionable whether or not Islam is really compatible with democracy, since those who choose Islam are choosing submission and its quite possible that true followers of the faith would choose an authoritarian style government.