Justifying Revolution: Law, Virtue, and Violence in the American War of Independence ed. Glenn A. Moots and Philip Hamilton

Abstract

Reviewed by: Justifying Revolution: Law, Virtue, and Violence in the American War of Independence ed. Glenn A. Moots and Philip Hamilton Zara Anishanslin (bio) Keywords Just war theory, Warfare, American Revolutionary War, Military history Justifying Revolution: Law, Virtue, and Violence in the American War of Independence. Edited by Glenn A. Moots and Philip Hamilton. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2018. Pp. 392. Cloth, $45.00.) The organizers of the edited volume Justifying Revolution: Law, Virtue, and Violence in the American War of Independence have a simple yet potent justification for their work: It is the first book to examine the American Revolution within the context of just-war theory. The editors, Glenn Moots and Philip Hamilton, rightly point out that such a theoretical application is overdue. They also argue that the fact the American Revolution was "hard, bloody, and destructive" (3) makes it particularly fruitful for such analysis. For these reasons, the volume is a welcome contribution to the historiography of the American Revolution writ large. Co-edited by a professor of history and a professor of political science and philosophy, the book offers a laudably interdisciplinary spectrum of scholars who, at times, contradict one another, most notably around the central question of whether or not the American Revolution was a "just war." This leaves the reader wishing the editors had included a "Conclusion" to tie the volume together. Aside from that omission, the book's structure is logical. After the editors' "Introduction," it moves from a section on "Jus ad Bellum" (justifi-cations for waging rebellion or starting war), to one on "Jus in Bello" (the ethics of wartime conduct toward civilians and military both), before a concluding section, "Jus post Bellum" (the morality of post-war diplomacy and peace). This structure moves the reader from thinking—as those who lived through the revolutionary era would have done—about legal and ethical applications of just-war theory before, during, and after the beginning and end of armed conflict. Although the editors frame the [End Page 117] volume as one engaging just-war theory writ large, this is, as they term it, "western" just-war theory. In fact, the book's focus is overwhelmingly Euro- and Euro American-centric. Fans of Swiss legal theorist Emer de Vattel, author of Law of Nations (1758), will find much to enjoy here. Norwegian law professor Andreas Aure walks the reader through an intellectual genealogy explaining why Vattel was the "most influential voice concerning just war theory" among revolutionary era leaders (22), while international affairs professor Theodore Christov examines the fondness that George Washington and other Americans such as James Otis had for Vattel. Moots and Valerie Ona Morkeviĉius, both political scientists, consider Vattel alongside other Protestant thinkers such as John Calvin, as their focus is Protestant ideas about justifications for war and rebellion over two centuries, a welcome look at religion and war. However, despite admitting that, "historians disagree about the precise role of Protestant religion in the Revolution" (48), they do not really address this historiography, instead presenting us with a Revolution almost uniformly peopled by Reformed Protestants. Jack P. Greene also takes us back and forth across the Atlantic to look at this "fratricidal war." Relying upon pamphlet literature, Greene looks at "coercionists" and "conciliationists" in both Britain and America, tracing the arguments of those in favor of using force against rebel colonists and those against. As he pithily notes, "British coercionists should be accorded a place among the founders of the nation that came into being as an unintended consequence of their resort to military measures" (97–98). Greene's point that both British and American public opinion should be studied is a crucial yet too often underemphasized one—though he, like other authors in the book, neglects the importance of visual culture in transatlantic propaganda. Greene's chapter finds a useful companion in historian William Anthony Hay's edifying look at shifting British strategies and claims of sovereignty jus post bellum. Chapters by Philip Hamilton and Jonathan Den Hartog also form useful companion pieces for different chronological stages, in this case through biopic analyses. Hamilton's focus on Henry Knox's gentlemanly ideals about jus in bello and...