Revolution?

The Enlightenment (1776)

We approached the American Revolution for independence as the pinnacle of the Age Of Enlightenment: the revolution was predicated on the values of freedom and equality argued for by writers such as Locke, Moliere and Voltaire;  Thomas Jefferson and the other founders put these principles into action and used them to justify violent revolution against their oppressor.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.  ....

Romanticism (Frankenstein, 1818)

These Enlightenment values, and the apparent success of the American Revolution, also inspired the French Revolution of 1789.  But this revolution does not ostensibly go as well as the in North America, and it tempers the Enlightenment confidence in the validity or efficacy of "revolution", spurring the emerging Romantics to believe that such violence against oppression may also lead to the creation of bloodthirsty "monsters" like Robespierre's "Reign of Terror" or Napoleon's violent ambition.

This ambivalence is covered in Shelley's Frankenstein, first in the Creature's Apologia (his ice cave argument of equality and justice) and then in the novel as a whole as we see his "revolution" descend into a Reign of Terror.  The Creature's initial reasoning, however, is  that of the Declaration: "Shall I respect man, when he contems me [treats me with contempt]?  Let him live with me interchange of kindness, and, instead of injury, I would bestow every benefit upon him with tears of gratitude at his acceptance.  ... Yet mine shall not be the submission of abject slavery.  I will revenge my injuries: if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear."

Here of course the Creature walks -- or crosses -- the thin line between the "War For Independence and terrorism, and it is worth thinking about what differentiates these two.  The Founders seemingly want to be left alone, and this is also the opposite of the Creature's request.

Marx (1818-1883)

Marx argues that essentially all war is revolution and it is caused by a lack of equality;  he roots his argument in the same concepts of secular, rational Enlightenment equality and justice harnessed by Jefferson et al, combines these with Rousseau's emphasis on property as the root of human inequality, and then, while making a secular argument, draws as well on our Judeo-Christian (he is Jewish) heritage of brotherly love and all being one in God's eyes.

He believed that one big, final revolution, could end the endless cycle of revolution.  By 1950 of course very few people still believed this to be true, but it's worth remembering that Marx publish his Communist Manifesto in 1848, only roughly 60 years after the American Revolution and 17 years before the end of legal slavery in America.

Fredrick Douglass (1818-1895) and Denmark Vesey (1767-1822)

First, read this NYT editorial.

According to the census of that year, in 1850, there were 3,204,313 slaves registered in the United States.  The total US population (excluding Native Americans) was 23,191,876 (so, slaves constituted 13% of the population).  In many areas of the South, African American slaves greatly outnumbered Anglo non-slaves.

I think it's safe to say that as we read Fredrick Douglass Narrative most all of us sympathize with and support Douglass's choice to break the law and run away to freedom.  It's a fairly safe assumption few if anyone in class will argue for a return to slavery.  But these are simple things to agree with, and the more complex questions arise when we compare Douglass's situation with those of the founding fathers and realize that the founders argued for the use of violence as a means of gaining political equality, justice and independence.

All of which leads to this question: would slaves have been justified in a violent revolution to end slavery?

Was the Civil War, which cost 620,000 lives (2% of the population) justified, either:

a) as a means of ending slavery or

b) as a means of the Confederate states achieves independence?

What are the conditions under which violent revolution is justified?