Can somebody please critique/grade my essay?
Prompt: Does justice only exist when all parties agree that a just act has occurred?
An act considered just by one party could be considered barbaric, oppressive, or unnecessary by another. Not all parties must agree on the justice of an act for it truly to be just. So long as an individual party has motives true to the greater good, despite any existing opposition the act is just. Though horrific, the United States' dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was genuinely a just act. Equivalently, Abraham Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus was extremely unpopular amongst the people. While the majority of people viewed this illegal act as unjust, a minority understood Lincoln's seemingly rash decision. These outwardly reckless decisions contained underlying motives true to the greater good that remained unseen to the majority of people, maintaining that not all parties must agree on the justice of an act for a just act to have occurred.
Nearing the end of the Second World War, the Japanese Empire refused to succumb to the inevitable Allied victory. After warnings, atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, eventually forcing a Japanese surrender. Irrefutably horrific, many innocents died. Undoubtedly just, the war came to an end and finally ended the global carnage. A Japanese surrender would have prevented this havoc from being wreaked upon themselves and would have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, therefore Japanese stubbornness is at fault for this atrocious yet unfortunately necessary act. This undoubtedly struck resentment amongst the Japanese people towards the United States. Thus solidifying the claim that for an act to be just, not all involved parties have to concur with the justice of the act.
In the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln resorted to desperate, and illegal, measures to prevent Maryland's succession to the Confederacy. Against the will of Congress, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, meaning that anybody could be detained indefinitely, lawfully or otherwise. Many citizens disagreed with Lincoln's despotic policy in suspending habeas corpus, so blatantly going against the constitution and ruling of Congress. The majority of people viewed this act as unjust. However, in taking this unpopular course of action to maintain Maryland's Union status, Lincoln would go on to win the war and reunite the United States, thus validating the justice within habeas corpus' suspension. Lincoln's pragmatic yet unpopular strategy to maintaining Maryland's Union status substantiated the claim that not all involved parties have to agree on the justice of the act for the act to be truly just.
These two acts typify that not all involved parties must agree on the justice of an act for a just act to have occurred. The Japanese people who suffered as a result of the atomic bombs surely saw it as an act of injustice, while the United States had only the world's best interests in mind as it was the only viable option to put an end to WWII. Also the American people who felt betrayed and wronged by their president as they had their rights stripped, although for good reason, as Lincoln then went on to win the war and reunite the United States.
Vary your wording if you can.