The US, if you may recall, was founded via a violent revolution by the people against the ruling government. "Treason never doth succeed, for when it does, none dare call it treason." Perhaps, and perhaps our sole definition of what constitutes a "just" revolution is a revolution that it a) occurred and b) succeeded. But in theory, at least, we should be able to construct a theoretical account about just rebellion--when would violent resistance to the ruling regime, up to and including overthrowing the government, be considered just?
I ask the question generally, but I have a specific case in mind. Specifically, a full-scale revolt by American Blacks against the United States in the 19th century. This never actually happened, but there are smaller-scale examples. We tend to be appalled by Nat Turner's slave revolt, because it killed innocents. Which it did--but not all of them. Nat Turner gave the orders to kill every White person he found--probably unjust, but perhaps understandable in his situation--and this ended up including many women and children, and probably some male non-slave owners as well. But what if the slave revolt restricted itself to a) members of the authority (soldiers, policemen, etc.) and b) adult slaveholders? Is there any moral standard by which we can condemn a slave killing his master or mistress, much less do so while still upholding the idea that American colonists could justly revolt over a 3-pence tax hike without representation? How about a full-fledged revolt, complete with guerilla warfare and marching on capitals and all the other sundries of war as conducted in the 19th century.
I think the case in favor of the justifiability (not necessarily the wisdom) of armed revolution by Blacks can plausibly extend at least to the civil rights era (though I myself would push the date back to the apex of Jim Crow in the 1920s or 30s). Certainly, my intuition is that any argument which justifies the American Revolution in 1776 could not at the same time foreclose a total Black slave rebellion in 1856. But I'm curious, because I don't think we really grapple with this scenario when talking about the evils of racism or slavery. It's not just that they were evil. It's that they were evil to such an intense degree that they would have made it perfectly justifiable for their victims to violently overthrow the government of the United States and end the American experiment entirely.
No? Why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Pendantic note:
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."
I had to look up who said it -- it was Sir John Harington. Per Wikipedia, he bounced in and out of favor at the court of Elizabeth I.
As for the substance of your post: I agree with the thrust of it. Here's another, related pair of questions: I've often thought that the Founders, could they get a peek at the degree of government regulation and intrusion in modern American society, would consider it more than enough reason for rebellion. First, do you agree that they would so view matters? And second: if they did, how, if at all, would you argue to them that they were wrong?
Post a Comment