Was the Revolutionary War justified?

"There is only one reason for your monarchy betraying the country - you have to win" - Daimyo Tronaga, "General"

Good luck and understand the practical reason behind the rebellion. Everyone has their own, and most of them have never actually been recorded. There are many things considered to be caused by "there is no tax not shown" - but for most people, please do not forget that there is no reason at all. No

The real reason behind this may be the confusion of the colonies of thirteen colonies, some sort of parliament and legislative act with the home country.

First of all, some colleagues think they should pay a part of the cost of fighting the seven year war and the Indian war. These wars almost broke the British, and they did not understand why settlers should not pay their fair share. Definitely, the settlers did not agree

Secondly, there are unbearable / compulsive actions (depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on). After the Boston Tea ceremony, these actions in Parliament deliberately punished colonies. Unlike lack of voting rights - this really only affects the elite and actions affect the lives of daily settlers - this is to cause greater anger

Without slavery, what is the history of America? In 1772, Somerset and Stewart ruled, but basically, claiming that Chatel's slavery system was not fully supported by any customary laws, he claimed to be impossible in British law . Can you imagine how the South sees this?

However, all of the above can be combined into one phrase. Sufficient people are no longer looking at themselves as Americans, not as British settlers. They believe that actions threaten their constitutional rights, natural rights and the colonial charter. They have several reasons, as Massachusetts actually deleted colonial regulations and was under direct control of the British government.

Everyone in the colony - even those not directly affected by the act - I think this is a thin side of the wedge, and whenever they try to insist that they think they have rights to the London government, they It applies this wedge enough for them to take rebellious measures

But even if the rebellion fails, I think it still shows the beginning of the end of the American colony. There were so many bad emotions at the time - the civil war never felt the people really disappearing, it pushed it to the ground for a while.

Does it make sense? I do not know. I can see the arguments on both sides. But this is reasonable, with victory and British military victory is reasonable in the only true defense system. But this is not a revolution - there have been no major changes in the British governance system. This is a split state war or an independent war.

However, it is worth noting that the revolutionary position eliminates the need for revolutionary war theory, that is, the idea that large revolutionary violence is not morally rationalized. . Some empirical political scientists believe that there is sufficient evidence that nonviolent revolution is more likely to achieve their goals than revolutionary wars (Chenoweth & Stephan 2011). Even if this is a generalization, whether there are exceptions - whether nonviolence is unlikely to achieve the goal of a legitimate revolution, or whether it only brings unnecessary costs for human happiness - In this case, the theory of the revolutionary war is necessary.

As I pointed out, there are several reasons why it is particularly difficult to prove a revolutionary war. As mentioned in Section 3, the most obvious is that there are many ways to disappoint the goal of establishing a more just political order, so it may be difficult to meet reasonable requirements for success . Another problem is that it is difficult to judge satisfaction of proportional requirements. Indeed, when trying to meet the standard fair warfare requirements as a prerequisite for a reasonable start of a revolutionary war, some of the most difficult moral issues of the revolutionary war have emerged.