Just America or Just in War? Throughout the decades, history has recorded all the wars in which the United States has participated in. Some may consider that the United States’ participation in foreign affairs may have been cruel, or unnecessary; while in other cases, others find it essential for the United States to fight for the common good. Therefore, philosophers—in the pursuit of justice—have designed methods that dictate how a nation can justly engage into a war, one of this methods being the Just War theory.
The American colonist heard about the battle and they faced major decision. Should they join the rebels or remain loyal to the British? With this battle the colonists became more independent in the formation of the continental army preparing for a protective war for
War is about principles. It can be used to end injustice, tyranny, or both. It can band people together to form a bond that is unbreakable, all fighting for the same cause. But that bond can have a high price. War kills soldiers, tearing them from family; it kills innocent people, just trying to survive.
This war took substantial financial toll on England, which led to England’s “simple” idea that colonists should be the ones to help pay off the debt of the war. This led to a series of events in which the policies being passed in parliament were unfair to the colonies. This is what began
However, the engagements of England were not fully unjustified. While the colonists took advantage of the protection and steady flow of commerce that England provided them with, they were participating in tax evasion which is a criminal offense even in our own society today. The colonists were complacent and unappreciative and that was partly the English government’s fault. The English unintentionally conditioned the colonists to maintain certain expectations, and when those expectations failed to match with reality the colonists became confused and angry. Put simply, the colonists were akin to spoiled petulant children, and the English were incompetent and incapable of properly employing their power over the
Colonists did not agree that the British government should raise revenue when it comes to taxing the colonies. The most notable for all that happening was the Stamp Act, the Townshend Tariffs and the Tea Act. The colonists also did not agree with the fact that they were not having the same rights as other British subjects. Because of that, violence occurred on the day of March 5, 1770, which was known as the Boston Massacre. The British soldiers ended up killing five men who were Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, James Caldwell, Patrick Carr, and Crispus Attucks.
When talking about war, there are many books with few answers to what war truly is. Barbara Ehrenreich brings forth not only the possibilities towards understanding war but also the passion people from history have had towards it. One key issue she brings to light is humanities love for war, so much so that people would use excuses like holy wars to justify their need to fight in a war. She declares that war is as muddled as the issue of diseases and where diseases came from around 200 years ago. More so than that she even goes further on to state that these rituals that date back to prehistoric times are the cause of human nature during times of war rather than human instinct.
One loud shot was fired, leaving everyone with the question of “who fired first,” The Revolutionary War had begun. The American colonist were unquestionably right in waging war and breaking away from Britain. The colonist no longer wanted to be under Britain's strong mercantilist. Conflict had rose between the mother country and the colonist. The American colonist were justified in waging and breaking away from Britain because of taxes, treatment, and mercantilism.
“[The British declare] that parliament can ‘of right make laws to bind us all in cases whatsoever’” (Dickinson and Jefferson, Document 5). Another reason why American colonists were justified in waging war on the British is because of the growing acts of British violence against the colonists. “Order quickly broke down, and the frightened soldiers fired into the crowd.
They need to know their strengths and their enemy's weakness. If they do this they should not need to worry about the victory and focus on the task at hand. They will know when and when not to fight by following this message. This writing helped many military leaders guide their army into war. Legalism also helped people in war ,along with governing.
Can an antiquated lens provide an adequate examination and understanding of modern warfare? The theories of Carl von Clausewitz retain remarkable contemporary merit and relevance in explaining the critical elements affecting warfare in the modern era.
Freedom can be defined in many different ways, the dictionary definition, meaning the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint may be how you see freedom. One thing most of the people in the world would agree on is that freedom throughout the world. Both Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech and Kennedy’s inaugural address discuss upholding freedom in the world. However, Roosevelt’s speech talks about supporting war in the efforts to maintain peace, whereas Kennedy’s speech talks about using more peaceful means like negotiating and coming to an agreement. Roosevelt gave his “Four Freedoms” speech in 1941.