American Revolution: A Just War, or Just Another War?

By: Jonathon Cavada

Illustrated by: Carla Cieza Espinoza

Did those revolutionaries who narrowly clinched victory in that daring rise to self-governance have a foot to stand on concerning the righteousness of their cause? George Fox University (GFU) Politics professor Dr. Mark Hall thinks so; so much so that he invited Air Force Academy Instructor Dr. John D. Roche to debate the topic. The two faced off in the Hoover Lecture Hall the evening of Sept. 13, 2021.

Hall’s argument was quite simple: taxation without representation was illegitimate concerning British Common Law, and was not to be tolerated to any degree, especially from a British Parliament and King that the rebels considered to be increasingly tyrannical. The combination of the illegal tax burden, as well as the deployment of 30K additional British soldiers was considered far too great a usurpation to tolerate peacefully. He argued that the American Patriots were pressed to resort to a war of independence following the British engagement in the battles of Lexington and Concord.

In true military fashion, Dr. Roche laid siege to the idea that the Revolution was righteously inspired. He enumerated a litany of reasons by which the Patriot cause was hamstrung by shaky legal grounds, lack of proper war-making authority by just war standards, ample opportunity for peaceful resolution, and little chance at military success. Several specific examples Dr. Roche provided include, respectively: the British people were taxed at a rate of 50x that of the North American colonists; the extralegal Continental Congress that issued the Declaration of Independence would have been rejected by just war theorists Grotius, Pufendorf, and Vattel; the Crown sent peace commissioners mid-1776 to attempt reconciliation; and the British military force was the greatest in the world with more than double the population of the colonists to draw troops from, as well as having roughly the same naval strength of both France and Spain combined.

Though his argument was extensive, it proved ineffective to the line Dr. Hall held regarding the combination of an illegitimately imposed tax burden, and the King's progressively obstinate disposition towards his North American subjects. Though much of Roche's points weakened the affirmative stance, the most injurious point made was likely regarding the incredible gamble a patriot victory was considering the odds—but Dr. Hall insisted a victory was not necessary! He argued that simply keeping the patriot side in the fight would eventually bring the Empire to inevitable defeat, assuming that France would at some point enter the fray in the Patriots’ corner. All in all, I submit that while Dr. Hall's simple argument regarding self-defense in the face of tyranny comes off as a robustly adequate defense, Dr. Roche's extremely substantial case against a just war designation is almost impossible to deny.

It should be noted that Dr. Roche does not suppose the American style of governance and freedoms associated are compromised in the calculus; instead, he offers the opinion that the inheritance of the miracle of self-governance has incidentally been borne out of some degree of false pretense and poor political calculation, although our liberty is no less awe-inspiring. The Q&A was an interesting and informative exchange; one of the most interesting points added was Roche’s assertion that the American revolution never truly ended considering how many people groups have since and to this day continue to vie for liberty first exemplified by the achievement of American Independence.