What do those who hold to "non-violence" think of the first American Revolution?

[penguins4me]

First off, allow me to state that I consider myself a "peaceable person"; you leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. I have absolutely no qualms about using force, including lethal force, to defend myself and my family from someone who wishes to visit death or great bodily harm upon us.

That said, how does the principle of "non-violence" square with the American War for Independence? Picking up this simple quote and running with it: "when you threaten or attack the government violently, you just make it bigger." It didn't seem to turn out that way, at least initially, under the Articles of Confederation, resulting from a violent war against England.

(Also, for the site owners, if this topic leads to a place or to subject matter you don't want on your board, I apologize in advance and will go register for an account on the sooper sekrit subversive message board.)

[Jared]

I think the simple answer is that times are different now. If we were going to go the way of the first revolution, it should have happened at least a century ago! as it is, we are in way deeper then guys like my hero sam adams every were. as a result, i think our tactics have to be different. living in a "global society" also changes things quite a bit. anything we do or say can be transmitted around the world in seconds. i guess my point is that a violent revolution is not <i>necessary</i> now. we have the resources to use education on such a wider scale then was previously available. using resources like the ridley report and free talk live, we can broadcast our peaceful protests and civil disobedience around the world for all to see. it is my hope that, by taking advantage of what we have available to us, the liberty movement can avoid any violent tactics.

[Tom Sawyer]

Well the colonists were able to pit France against England. Yorktown was the end because of the French blockade.

Which superpower would the next revolution want to team up with?

I am unable to think of any examples of successful violent revolutions in recent history they have all been nonviolent.
REVOLUTION, Ya Say Ya Want A

[EJinCT]

Was violence used as a last resort? From what I learned, I feel that was the case during our revolutionary war.

When non-violent reasoning and protest offer no chance of change, then perhaps violence could be justifiable.

I have just not seen any instances in my lifetime where such is warranted.

[David]

Your question is actually a great question. 
I agree with Jared, the times, they are a' different.  The biggest being the legitamacy of gov't.  Simply put, the gov't still has it.  The British had lost it, at least among a large enough of the population that there was a war.  It becomes extremely clear, that the USA gov't still is seen as mostly the good guys everytime I read the comments section after a news article detailing one of our arrests or protests.  Or the little girl who sas punched in the face, and pepper sprayed for resisting arrest for a curfew violation.  Most of the people driven to comment, thought she deserved it. 

A more important look at the question is this.  The revolutionary war against one tyrannical gov't resulted in another gov't, that was weaker at the time, but is now very much more tyrannical, in terms of their ability to enforce their will on others.  Wars always lead to fights for power, because they always lead to more gov'ts.  Call me an idealist, but I am virtually convinced that we can achieve to some degree or another a far more peaceful gov't, more effectively using nonviolent tactics, than by using violence.  I am an anarchist, who is prepared to live the rest of his life in a state, if need be, but will always aim for anarchy. 

To be quite honest, I have no taste for violence.  I enjoy it on tv because I know it is not true, but the real stuff bothers me.  I would rather be in jail than hurt one of the police enforcers, no matter how angry I get at them, for their enforcement of unjust laws. 

[penguins4me]

Thank you all for the thought-provoking responses. Again, I'm not an advocate of violence, certainly not for its own sake. I simply have a very hard time with the idea that just folk would allow evil folk free reign to do what they pleased. Yes, I'm aware that the end result for the just folks could be quite poor (dead, imprisoned, etc.), and so yet again it's proven that there is no justice in the world.

'Course, I don't believe that merely because the passage of time has led to bigger and better weapons and bigger and ... "better" governments, that reactive violence is useless, especially considering how fragile much of the newer toys and support equipment is (one of they easiest examples is the power grid - how many newer tools of oppression work without the juice?). Tom Sawyer also mentioned the fact that England had her hands full at the time when the American colonies made their move; yet, as an example, the US is running two major wars in two different parts of the globe, and is apparently making lots of noise about their consideration to start a third.

The very idea of killing a fellow human in cold blood, no matter how evil the other human may be, is anathema to me. I don't advocate such in any way, shape, nor form. Being a modern-day martyr is extremely noble, and I hold those who choose to patiently suffer at the hands of their oppressors in the highest regard. Since I am not that noble, I would hope that, regardless of any demise I might suffer, that the defensive actions I and others of like mind make would serve as their own warning to oppressive, unjust acts. It still causes me to question the mindset of the Founding Fathers because, even though they set in motion a country which was the most free in the world, some among them did advocate bloodshed by way of acts of asymmetrical warfare. It is that last bit that brings me to question the idea that non-violent resistance is the only way to initiate change.

[Bill St. Clair]

As I've said before, I do not share the pacifist sentiment of the majority on this board. I would much rather bury a cop, or ten, in the forest near my house, than go to jail, unless I had actually committed a real crime, initiated force to harm another person or their property. In that case I would admit my transgression, offer restitution, and surrender to the court if my victim preferred that course to my offer.

But discussion here has helped me a lot. Just as I learned from the attentions of a bi-sexual man that I have no homosexual tendencies, I have learned here that I'm no pacifist. I will not initiate force, but I will defend myself and my family, if necessary, with extreme prejudice. Though I hope and pray that day will never come, I fear a massive civil war is coming, with little or nothing I can do to stop it.

And because I disagree with the pacifist sentiment here, I will continue to be mostly quiet.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Its a matter of incentives.  The British military was an occupying force.  They were under orders and had little choice and nowhere to go.  I believe that in this day and age, if it became even a little dangerous to be a government bureaucrat, these people would fold up their tents and go home.  Same with the cops and soldiers.

[error]

They need a SWAT team to go after some teenage kid smoking pot in his basement (which, by the way, isn't even wrong!). It's pretty obvious they're scared.

[Tom Sawyer]

Hey Bill you have a misconception about nonviolent methods...



In heated debate on the forum there has been a lot of misconceptions and mispresentations of what Nonviolent Revolution means.

What nonviolent action isn't

1) Nonviolent action has nothing to do with passivity, submissiveness, and cowardice; just as in violent action, these must first be rejected and overcome.

2) Nonviolent action is not to be equated with verbal or purely psychological pressures for attitude change; nonviolent action, instead of words is a sanction and a technique of struggle involving the use of social, economic, and political power, and the matching of forces in conflict.

3)Nonviolent action does not depend on the assumption that people are inherently "good"; the potentialities of people for both "good" and "evil" are recognized, including the extremes of cruelty and inhumanity.

4) People using nonviolent action do not have to be pacifists or saints; nonviolent action has been predominantly practiced by "ordinary" people.

For the rest see this link
Correcting Common Misconceptions About Nonviolent Action .pdf

[Bill St. Clair]

I don't mind non-violent methods, I just refuse to eliminate defensive violence as an option in the face of violent attack. I'm claustrophobic. I prefer death to imprisonment. If I'm in a cage, or dead, it doesn't matter to me how free the survivors are. I don't entirely believe that the world will continue to exist after I leave it. I am profoundly selfish.

I also believe firmly in the Zero Aggression Principle. Leave me alone, and I'll respond in kind.

[EJinCT]

Excellent post Tom. Thanks. 

I don't mind non-violent methods, I just refuse to eliminate defensive violence as an option in the face of violent attack.

I don't think there are any here that would totally eliminate defensive force if the situation actually warranted it. For me, force is always the last resort.

I prefer death to imprisonment. If I'm in a cage, or dead, it doesn't matter to me how free the survivors are. I don't entirely believe that the world will continue to exist after I leave it. I am profoundly selfish.

I once held a similar view of life so I can commiserate with you; though if you find love, I have a feeling that your perspective would change.

Does it really matter whether there is an afterlife or not? Shouldn't we place our focus on making the present moment a better environment to live in?

[dalebert]

i guess my point is that a violent revolution is not <i>necessary</i> now. we have the resources to use education on such a wider scale then was previously available. using resources like the ridley report and free talk live, we can broadcast our peaceful protests and civil disobedience around the world for all to see. it is my hope that, by taking advantage of what we have available to us, the liberty movement can avoid any violent tactics.

This is where I am. Free speech and open communication with the help of the new modern media is much more powerful than violence. In such a world, violence just sets the movement back. It gives the enemy an excuse to take us out thereby silencing our voices, which are what they're really afraid of. Killing someone might win a battle, but exposing violent tyrannical people for what they really are is what will win the war and they know that. Why do you think they're so upset with Lauren?

P.S. Bill St. Clair, I love the statement in your signature!

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't entirely believe that the world will continue to exist after I leave it. I am profoundly selfish.

I tried to leave this shit behind, but they won't let you anymore.

The only reason I'm involved is the world I leave my child and I suppose the legacy that others before left me.

[Moorlock]

Coincidentally, I was just transcribing an 1839 pamphlet called "Evils of the Revolutionary War" by Charles Whipple.  The title was deliberately provocative and was meant to be a response to the "but what about our glorious Revolution?" question that American pacifists got all the time, and that has come up here:

     What, all war wrong?
     Yes, says the Peace man.
     Then the war which gained American Independence, our glorious Revolutionary war, was wrong!
     It was.
     Then, sir, tell me this, if you can. Where would our great, prosperous, and happy country have been at this moment, but for that war?
     I will tell you. It would have been more prosperous, more moral, and happier than it now is.
     You cannot surely believe such an absurdity. Wonderfully prosperous and happy we should be, no doubt, remaining to this hour under the tyranny of Great Britain
     There is your mistake, my friend. You take it for granted, without examination, that we could never have freed ourselves from British domination, except by war. Now, I say, that we should have attained independence as effectually, as speedily, as honorably, and under very much more favorable circumstances, if we had not resorted to arms.
     Very well: now show me how it could have been done.
     Our fathers might have accomplished this object, great as it was, merely by taking the course which the society of Friends took to maintain their rights, and by which, though a small and despised body of men, they compelled the English and American governments to recognize and protect those rights. This course consisted of three things. 1st. A steady and quiet refusal to comply with unjust requisitions; 2d. Public declarations of their grievances, and demands for redress; and 3d. Patient endurance of what-ever violence was used to compel their submission.
     We have every reason to expect that steady perseverance in a course like this will ultimately succeed, wherever the cause is just.  Because "moral might is always on the side of right;" and because governments are composed of men, and not of brutes.  Let its suppose, for a moment, that our fathers had acted in the manner I have mentioned, and see what the various stages of the process would have been. In every part of the contest, they strictly adhere to the principles above stated. They carefully refrain from violence, constantly remonstrate against the oppressive acts, and persevere in passive resistance.—When the taxed tea is brought to their shores, they universally abstain from the use of it. It lies undemanded in the ware-houses, and thus the plan of taxation, as far as that article goes, is as completely defeated as it could have been by violence and robbery. When the stamped paper is taxed, they carry on their business without it. This involves great difficulty, inconvenience, and embarrassment of business. No matter! They are patriots, and willing to suffer for their country; and the evils thus endured are infinitely less than the calamities of war. If direct taxes are laid upon them, they quietly, but universally, refuse payment. Their property is seized and sold to raise the tax. They patiently submit to this evil, for their country's sake, and rejoice that it is so slight in comparison with war. Imprisonment, insult, and abuse of every kind, are added to enforce the oppressive acts of parliament. Still no violence is used, either for defence or retaliation; but petitions, remonstrances, delegations are multiplied as the occasions for them recur. When all these measures are found to fail of success, they unite in solemn assembly to make to the world a declaration of their wrongs, and pronounce their formal separation from, and independence of the British nation. This movement excites new and more violent demonstrations of hostility on the part of the British functionaries. The signers of the Declaration of Independence, and the officers of the new government, are seized and sent to England to take their trial for high treason. No opposition is made, no defence attempted by the patriot leaders. They are ready to lay down their lives in support of the liberty of their country, and they rejoice to meet the danger in this form, in which they can explain and defend their principles, rather than to submit their cause to the decision of brute force on the battle-field, where their own fall would involve the destruction of thousands of their countrymen. They are tried by the constituted authorities of England, and calmly avow and defend their revolutionary measures. They are found guilty, sentenced to death, and (for we will suppose the worst) actually executed as traitors. But their defence, their bold and clear explanation of the principles of liberty, their new views of the relative rights and duties of a government and its subjects, are in the mean time eagerly read and pondered by all the British nation. And while this good seed is taking root in the hearts of the people, the source of power, let us return to the United States, and see what the revolutionists, thus suddenly deprived of their leaders, are doing.
        As soon as that noble band of pioneers is taken from them, they choose others to administer the affairs of the new nation. These, too, arc seized as rebels. They immediately elect more. What shall the colonial officers do against such pertinacious, yet unresisting opponents? The whole population avow their determination to be flee. The whole population offer themselves for punishment. The prisons are filled to overflowing with rebels; yet they have accomplished nothing, for every man they meet is a rebel.  What is to be done? Shall they send for an army? That is needless, for their present force is unresisted. But suppose an army comes. They can do nothing but take prisoners and destroy property, and perhaps execute a few persons; for I take it for granted that they would not attempt to put to death the great mass of the population. All that they do to enforce obedience renders them more odious to the people, and nothing is effected towards destroying the principles of liberty. Intelligence arrives of the death of their leaders in England. This adds fuel to the fire. Their determination, before strong, is now irrevocable. On the other hand, the news of their measures, their pertinacity, and their non-resistance, is constantly going to the people of England, a people already moved to sympathy by the constancy and heroism of the patriot leaders, and already half persuaded by the arguments of those leaders that their cause is just. Can it be imagined, is it consistent with the attributes of human nature to suppose, that such a persevering and undaunted defence of principles so just would fail of working conviction in the hearts of a people like the English? Even were it possible for parliament to persevere in the attempt to subjugate such opponents by force, the whole English people, the whole civilized world, indeed, would cry out shame upon them, and force them to abandon the design, and finally to recognize the independence of the Americans.
        It follows as a necessary inference from the principles before alluded to, namely, that moral might is altvays on the side of justice, and that governors and legislators are never destitute of the feelings and sympathies of men, that firm perseverance in such a course as I have described must have resulted in the acknowledgment of American Independence; and probably that result would have occurred in much less time than was occupied by the revolutionary war. This will be made perfectly clear by looking, for a moment, at the reason why Great Britain at last gave up the contest. Did we conquer that mighty nation? Not at all! Still less did they conquer us! Why, then, did not the war continue? Simply and solely because Great Britain was tired of fighting! absolutely wearied out by contention and its necessary consequences! Would not a similar pertinacity in time produce the same effect without the use of physical force? I say, we should certainly in this way have attained our Independence.
        We will now suppose this object effected. Let us see what evils the pacific course has produced, in comparison with the evils actually resulting from the revolutionary war.
        1st. Loss of Life. We will make a liberal estimate, and allow that one thousand persons have been executed as traitors, after deliberate trial and sentence; and that ten thousand (men, women, and children) have been slain, unresisting, by the exasperated British soldiers. Upon this enormously exaggerated supposition we have eleven thousand lives lost. But it is computed that a hundred thousand Americans perished during the eight years of the revolutionary war. We have, then, a direct saving of eighty-nine thousand lives of American citizens by pacific measures. This alone should decide the question in favor of peace. But we have other considerations.
        2d. Expense direct and indirect. Commerce, trade, and manufactures have been to agreat extent suspended, and a large amount of property has heen wantonly destroyed by the devastations of the enemy. But all this would have happened to a still greater extent in war; and the non-resisting policy has saved us the enormous expense of supporting an army and navy, and of building and equipping fortifications. The direct expense of the revolutionary war to our country is estimated, by Pitkin, at $135,000,000. The same author has stated the direct expense of our military operations since that war, to be more than $300,000,000. All this at least, $435,000,000, we should have saved by the pacific policy.
        3d. The interests of morality and religion. If a whole people have such a sense of their duty to God as to refuse to protect themselves by means which he has forbidden, they will not be likely to neglect either to recognize his hand, or implore his protection, throughout the struggle. The Sabbath has been strictly observed, and the supplications of the nation have arisen more ardently than ever to Him who holds the hearts of kings in his hand. The mass of the people, having their minds intently fixed on the great struggle between liberty and oppression, and anxiously watching the contest of faith, love, patience and hope, against carnal weapons, have been strongly withheld both from trifling amusements and vicious indulgences. At the close of the struggle, therefore, the interests of religion and morality are more flourishing than at its commencement.
        But, on the other hand, look at the long train of moral evils which crowd in the track of our revolutionary war. Intemperance, which has now become so extensively the disgrace of our land, unquestionably had its origin in the daily rations of spirit served to the revolutionary army and navy. Sabbath-breaking was abhorred by the descendants of the pious pilgrims, until war, which knows no Sabbath, broke over the approprlate employments of that day, and the reverence due to it. Licentiousness, the proverbial inmate of every camp, and profaneness, a vice almost universal among soldiers, have fearfully increased since their toleration in the revolutionary army and navy. Then the whole spirit and practice of war produce a slight estimation of the value of human life. Habits of plunder destroy that regard which we naturally feel for the sacredness of private property. The absolute and unconditional obedience demanded by military superiors, takes away the sense of individual responsibility to God. In short, war is permitted to suspend all the rules of morality.
        The loss of $400,000,000, and even the destruction of 100,000 lives, appear but trifling evils, in comparison with the enormous depravation of moral habits and religious principles which the revolutionary war has produced in this nation.
        The considerations above mentioned entirely satisfy me not only that we should have gained our independence, but that we should have been more prosperous, better and happier than we now are, had there been no revolutionary war.
        So much for positive results of the non-resistance plan. It may now be well to look at the subject in another aspect, and see what results would not have taken place, had our ancestors been magnanimous enough, honorable enough, Christian enough, to refuse to fight with Great Britain.
        Having gained their independence in the mode above mentioned, most assuredly they would not have continued to hold their fellow-creatures in slavery.
        Upon this point we cannot he mistaken. Men who had been led by Christian principle to regard the rights and abstain from the destruction of their enernies, could not have deliberately pursued a system of oppression and fraud against their former fellow-sufferers. Men who had so strongly demonstrated their belief in the doctrine, that the whole human race are alike entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, could not have systematically manufactured and used whips, chains, handcuffs and branding-irons. They would not have kept back the hire of the laborer; they would not have taken away the key of knowledge; they would neither have denied the theory nor shrunk from the practice of immediate emancipation. They would certainly have been, in truth as well as in pretence, a free people.
        Again. They would not have proceeded to defraud, corrupt, and exterminate the original inhabitants of this country. They would neither have deprived the Indians of their lands, nor supplied them with liquid fire, nor broken their faith, plighted in solemn treaties, nor expended the revenues of the country in making war upon them. How much treasure, how much blood, how many precious lives, how many immortal souls, might they have saved
        Lastly. They would not have admitted the system of violence and retaliation as a constituent part of their own government. Having forgiven their foreign foes, they would have pursued the like Christian course towards every domestic enemy. Having conquered by suffering in the great contest between nations, they would have trusted to the same means for overcoming all minor evils. So far from depending on the gallows, the prison, the stocks, the whipping-post, for peace and quietness, they would utterly have rejected all such barbarous instruments, and substituted for them love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, hope, patience, meekness. And, doing thus, they would have found the word of God a sure reliance; the whole armor of God a safe protection.