What is "legal and appropriate" is historically determined by the  
winners. With few exceptions it is rare for the victors to put  
themselves or their military personnel on trial for "war crimes"  
following the successful conclusion of a conflict.

On Jun 26, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Sam Treynor wrote:

> Military occupation may be the normal fate of conquered countries,  
> but that
> does not make it "legal and appropriate", especially if the  
> occupying forces
> are the perpetrators of a war of aggression.  This would apply, for  
> example,
> to the Roman occupation of Britain, or the British occupation of  
> India.
> Whether it applies to the Southern Reconstruction depends on whether  
> the
> South had a right to secede.
>
> The debate over whether there was a constitutional right to secede  
> has a
> long history and appears to me to be inconclusive.  But we might  
> want to
> consider whether there is a moral right to secede.  The right of the  
> people
> of a particular geographical territory to exercise self- 
> determination is
> frequently asserted (Bosnia and Kosovo) and seems to be a reasonable
> corollary to the idea of democratic government.
>
> Sam Treynor

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html