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?