The American Revolution — was it moral?

contactreportresearch

Father Greg and I have both posted on our respective blogs on the issue of just revolution lately. When is a revolution moral by Christian standards? This is very important because the claim of many of us is that the USA has a basic Christian foundation.

I think that it is beyond the shadow of a doubt that the cultural milieu within which the American colonies were founded was mostly one of either the Radical Reformation or of the Dissenters (I am using Dissenters here in the way in which it would have been used in England.) In particular, the Bill of Rights was written to ensure that the suppression of Radical Reformers and Dissenters which took place in Europe and England would not happen again. At the same time, the same Bill of Rights was intended to protect those who were of little religion, such as those of our Founding Fathers who followed a more Deist turn of thinking. Nevertheless, while the American Constitution is written to reflect a rather broad protection of freedom of thought and practice, it is beyond question that actual federal regulations and state laws of that time clearly reflected a much more “Christian” viewpoint, as did the writings of the majority of the Founding Fathers and other legislators. This has made for a fertile field of arguments as our culture has changed.

Nevertheless, let me return to my original question. When is a revolution moral by Christian standards? You see, if the American Revolution was not moral, then, regardless of other arguments, our nation is not founded on Christian morality, but rather on a massive act of immoral disobedience which casts its shadow over our foundations. Can that which is founded on immorality be itself moral? You must understand that our Founding Fathers took this as a very serious question. Why do I say this? Read the Declaration of Independence adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. At its beginning, our Founders clearly state:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Please note that they comment that out of a decent respect for the “opinions of mankind” they need to declare the reasons that justify their revolution. But, it is just a little troubling to see that they do not appeal to the God of the Bible, rather they appeal to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Uhm, should I point out that many of today’s Evangelicals would say that “Nature’s God” is not the Biblical God? Their next paragraph, the preamble, is the one to which we all point to as our justification for a revolution. Nevertheless, though it appeals to a “Creator” nowhere does it actually quite quote Scripture or even parallel or paraphrase clearly Biblical thought. It says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In fact, this type of argument parallels the same argument made in China by the Zhou Dynasty (1122-256 BC). They justified the overthrow of the Shang Dynasty with a concept known as the Mandate of Heaven. That is, Heaven would bless a just ruler but would be displeased and withdraw its mandate from a despotic ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best. How did you know if the Mandate of Heaven had passed on? Well, Chinese historians said that you knew that the Mandate had passed on if the revolution was successful. I must admit that this seems a rather self-serving viewpoint! However, check out our preamble above. How did our Founding Fathers know that the “Mandate of Heaven”–or at least the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”–had changed and given permission for a revolt? Well, in two ways. The first way was that the King had become a despot (“to reduce them under absolute Despotism”). The second way is that we won.

The Founding Fathers had to deal with the idea of the “Divine right of kings“, which had been explicitly written about by people such as James I and the Carolignian Divines (and many others before them). A typical quote of this type of thinking is, “Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the fifth commandment, so no misgovernment on the part of a king can release his subjects from their allegiance.” And, this is a rather powerful quote, as none of the Founding Fathers ever argued that a child had a right to disobey his parents. Plus this type of quote is clearly part of the parallelisms found in books such as Ephesians which speak of master and slave, husband and wife, parents and children. It is a very appropriate parallelism to speak of king and subject in the same way as master and slave.

So, the Founding Fathers had to find a way to break that chain of reasoning. The preamble and the eighteen reasons that follow are their philosophical attempt to break the chain of reasoning that went from Romans 13 through Ephesians (and Colossians and Peter, etc.). But, there has been an unintended (at least by the Founding Fathers) consequence of their breaking that chain. Their descendants (all of us USA citizens) have had to deal with arguments about the rest of the chain. Look down USA history. Little by little the links of the chain have been altered. You can forget any talk about master and servant in this country. In fact, unions were and are the in-house revolt against despotic employers. Wives are now legally rather independent of their husbands. And, children have independent rights that are enforced by the courts. In fact, parents can even be disenfranchised if they misbehave badly enough towards their children. I find it interesting that very conservative Christians, through the last couple of hundred years of USA existence, have consistently argued against the very societal changes we take for granted. You can find many (no not just a few extremists, rather many) Christians arguing against a mandatory end to slavery, against increasing rights for women, against increasing rights for minors.

Every one of the arguments against slavery, for women, for minors attempts to base itself on the New Testaments writings. But … but … but every one of the arguments parallels the arguments that the Founding Fathers made against the English King. The argument was that despotism frees one from obligation. In every case, the counterargument by those who wanted to prevent change was that a benevolent king, a benevolent master, a benevolent husband, and benevolent parents would never behave that way and that laws ought to be passed only for the protection against despotic kings, despotic masters, despotic husbands, and despotic parents, but not passed in such a way that they diminished or changed the role of kings, masters, husbands, and parents. They further argued that to pass such “revolutionary” laws was to violate Scripture. Nevertheless, the chain had been broken in the American Revolution, and the result was and has been (to this day) a continuing revolution that has weakened each chain in the link of relationships that is found in books such as Ephesians, Colossians, and Peter. So, I would argue that the reasoning of the American Revolution had as its direct consequence the changing of laws governing the relationships between king and subjects, master and servants, husband and wife, parents and children. A side question is, was this change Biblical or not?

So this brings us back to the question about the American Revolution. Was it moral?

[NOTE: I AM NOT NOT NOT ARGUING FOR A RETURN TO OLD LAWS ON KINGS, MASTERS, HUSBANDS, AND PARENTS. But, I am pointing out that there are some philosophical connections here.]

===MORE TO COME===

Related posts:

1. The American Revolution and morality, part 02
2. The American Revolution and morality, part 03
3. USA loss of world moral influence
4. On Darwin and Deism
5. Does God like democracy? – part 02

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

participate