The American War of Independence continues!

Damn brave fella' that Prof. Keown, or, as they say 'over there', 'guy's got guts'!  You may remember an earlier post of mine  which drew attention to Prof. Keown's proposition that the American rebels were exactly that, rebels, no more and no less, and that their insurrection could not be justified under the traditional Christian definition of 'a just war'.  As it happens, Prof. Keown is a Brit - living and working in America and my strong advice to him would be to forego the hols in Massachusetts, he might find himself at an old-fashioned tea-party!

He has been taken to task by Mark Tooley and a long-ish thread of thrusts, parries and counter-thrusts has taken place at The American Spectator site, the latest from Keown sums up his position as follows:

Did the imposition of a few, limited taxes on the wealthy colonies to help pay for their security constitute a just cause for armed insurrection?

He answers his own question rather compellingly with a metaphor:

Imagine that thousands of American citizens, wanting to leave the mainland in search of a better life and to populate a large, uninhabited island a thousand miles off the west coast of the U.S., petition the U.S. Government to live on the island under U.S. jurisdiction, ruled by a Federal Governor. The Government agrees.

No sooner have the emigrants planted the Stars and Stripes on the island than they strike gold, build up a healthy trade with the mainland, and become hugely wealthy. However, the Japanese, wanting to expand their sphere of influence and enrich their coffers, invade the island. The U.S. successfully defends the island in a major, protracted war which costs many American lives and drains the U.S. Treasury.

To offset the massive cost of the war and of guaranteeing the island's security (a cost which has produced large tax hikes for Americans on the mainland), the U.S. Government imposes a modest tax on coffee imported by the islanders. Some islanders refuse to pay, claiming that as they have no right to vote for members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal tax demand is unwarranted. They seize a U.S.-registered ship in the island's port and jettison its cargo of coffee into the sea. They also assault IRS officials, riot, and torch the Governor's mansion.

When a detachment of U.S. Marines is sent to the island to restore order, some islanders confront them with loaded rifles and with cannon stolen from the local Federal Armory. Shots are exchanged. The Marines, outnumbered, retreat under withering fire. Many Marines are killed. The survivors reach the relative safety of the island's capital, which is promptly besieged by the rebel islanders.

The U.S. Government demands that the rebels lay down their arms and respect U.S. law. The rebels (representing perhaps only a third of the island population) refuse and declare independence, backing up their declaration with further attacks on U.S. forces on the island. A full-scale war between the rebel islanders and the U.S. ensues.

Have the rebel islanders waged a "just war"?

Well, when you put it like that  . . .

Comments

[dearieme]

He doesn't seem to understand the Boston Tea Party, though. It followed the reduction of the import duty on tea to nearly zero. Consequently the tea smugglers couldn't earn a dishonest living any more and so attacked the shipping in the harbour.

[Dom]

Keown's point comes up often in American schools. Alistair Cooke, in his "America", mentions something similar, and matter-of-factly adds that the British government had every right to raise taxes, even without representation in Parliament. Frankly, I agree, in part because Cooke is such a pleasant writer that it's hard not to. You're not expecting one of those national apologies, are you?

DM, I think you got things wrong. The import duty was reduced in England, to enable the East India Company to compete with Dutch Tea. To make up the differnce, the tax in the colonies was increased. Wiki has a good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

[David Duff]

Alas, Gentlemen, my ignorance on the subject disbars me from any useful comment but I would like to congratulate both Prof. Keown and his opponent, Mark Tooley, for an impeccable debate. Both of them made their points, and counter-points, with verve but always within the bounds of courtesy, to the benefit of outside ignoramuses like me. Oh, that the global warming debate could have been conducted on similar lines!

[dearieme]

Dom, I took my account straight from Hugh Bicheno's "Rebels & Redcoats: the American Revolutionary War (2003)". He mocks as deliberate lies much of the account of the war with which Americans are indoctrinated in school - such as the cause Boston Tea Party - but unfortunately doesn't provide me with a coherent account of why the War did happen. Or if he did I didn't notice it. Maybe it's too late, and a coherent, accurate account can't be pieced together now. Anyway, the truth is presumably not terribly important - the untruths do their harm, and their good, whatever the truth was. After all, after a couple of hundred years of Americans declining to turn any critical intelligence to the business of what did happen and why, it seems pretty daft to think that they might suddenly take an interest now.

[David Duff]

Be fair, 'DM', it's no different to the mythology that enshrouds and befogs Magna Carta which, had the robber barons concerned even guessed part of where it would all lead, they would have torn it up on Runnymede. Anyway, it was quickly ignored and was only restored later, with several pages cut, when poor old King John died of the shits. None of it was exactly ennobling!

[Dom]

DM, do you remember what Bicheno did to the Falklands War?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/apr/01/history.highereducation