Discourse+on+Revolutionary+Justification

//The following document was written in the late 1780s by historian Rev O. Lushón in response to the Revolutionary War. The document conveys a unique and extremely interesting justification for the Revolutionary War. It is unknown whether this document was publicly circulated during its time, but after 1800 this discourse fell into obscurity until brought back to light by amateur historians Jane Woo and Lydia Ahn in September 2009.

It is agreed upon most historical scholars that this document fell into obscurity due to its objective, cold-blooded voice as opposed to the vibrant, patriotic tones of its contemporaries, thus making it possible that the author was reluctant to share this work in fear of public backlash and controversy.//

**** A Discourse on Revolutionary Justification Rev O. Lushón, 1788
 * 

First, a definition of the word “revolution” –

//An overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.//

Second, a definition of the word “government” –

//The political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration.//

So when a revolution occurs, the people of a certain area overthrow and replace the established government. But can a revolution be justified? Remember that the word revolution implies a SUCCESSFUL rebellion, because a revolution must also replace the existing government. So before the revolution, there is a rebellion. A rebellion is an “open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.” If a person or group of people resists a government, they are also resisting the government’s laws (because it is the government that ultimately designs and sets laws in place), thereby making the rebellion illegal. Technically, this means that the rebellion is unjustified because it goes against the law. Thus, one could say that the American colonists were unjustified in their rebellion against the British crown because they were breaking the British law they were bound to.

But what if the rebellion succeeds and turns into a revolution? Is it justified then? Remember, a revolution not only overthrows the existing government but also replaces it with a new one. In the case of the American Revolution, the British Crown was overthrown and eventually replaced with a democratic republic that was formed by the revolutionary leaders. So, this new government now has the power to make new laws. Laws that will without a doubt condone the revolution that put the new government there in the first place. The revolution will no longer be illegal because the old laws it was breaking are now irrelevant; the laws of the old government that was overthrown do not apply any more. The new government will portray the revolution in a heroic light, as a courageous action against the “injustices” of the old government, thus making the revolution legal, or justified, as was the case of America after the Revolutionary War. The American colonists portrayed the Revolutionary War as necessary and valiant after they had overthrown the British government. The colonists could judge the Revolutionary War as justifiable because they now had the right to establish what exactly was “justifiable” by creating their own laws and propaganda. This is the image that the people will remember and pass onto their children. Successful rebellions that turn into revolutions justify themselves because it is the winner who determines the judgment of the revolution.

Then what if the American colonists had lost? Would they still have been able to admire and glorify the American Revolution (or more accurately, Rebellion, since we are assuming that the colonists had failed)? The answer is no. Not at all. When a rebellion fails, it cannot create a new government to make new laws that justify the revolution. The rebellion still falls under the legal reign of the existing government, therefore still making this rebellion illegal and unjustifiable. As stated before, and winners are allowed to make the rules, so the “winners” in this hypothetical case are the British Crown and Parliament, so they would have the power to determine if the revolution could be justified. Of course, the Crown and Parliament would never justify the Revolution, and release a stream of new laws and propaganda that would condemn the revolution as an act of betrayal.

What I’ve noticed as a scholar is that most of my peers fail to see this revolution outside of their patriotic viewpoint. They tend to say that the Revolution needs no discourse on justification because it is “blatantly obvious” of what the justification is – the British Crown and Parliament treated the American colonies as second-rate territories, subjecting the people to supposedly “unfair” taxes and “murdering” the colonists in supposed “massacres.” My peers purport that the “clear lack of morals” of the British government was justification enough. However, they are wrong. We are but men, not gods, so how can we determine what is truly moral and truly just? The taxes may have appeared unfair to us, but we have never looked at them from another viewpoint. We cannot justify something as serious as a revolution with mere patriotic cries of morality when we do not have the right to judge what morality is.

This is not to say that the American Revolution was unjustified. By all means, it was. But my colleagues must realize that it was not justified due to any sort of moral standard, to any sort of unfair taxing or “massacre.” Our Revolutionary War, the Glorious Revolution of Independence, was justified simply because of a single and simple fact: **we** **won**.

****  

__Citations:__ "Did the American Colonies have the right to revolt?" Political Forums: History. 23 July 2007. Web. 22 Sept. 2009. . Internet forum.

"revolution." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 22 Sep. 2009. . "government." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 22 Sep. 2009. .

"rebellion." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 22 Sep. 2009. .