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
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Richmond and VA slave Traders, plus Africa
I have always found this controversy to be somewhat ironic.
Suppose we agree that Lincoln was correct, and that secession was an illegal
and unconstitutional act. If that is the case, then Lincoln's approach to
reconstruction was correct, and Southern grievances over the military
occupation of the South have some legitimacy. But it also means that the
official title for the war, the "War of the Rebellion," is constitutionally
descriptive and accurate.
On the other hand, we might imagine that secession was legal, and that as a
consequence, the South in fact left the Union. If that is the case,
however, then the Northern victory in the war was decisive, and the military
occupation of the South was legal and appropriate. The South was a conquered
country, and suffered the normal fate of conquered countries--occupation,
and reconstruction.
So it seems to me that logically and consistently, you can either term the
civil war as "the war of Northern aggression," and accept the legitimacy of
the military occupation and reconstruction that followed Southern defeat, or
you can decry reconstruction, but accept that the South was in illegal
rebellion against the lawful government of the Union. But it does seem hard
to me to hold both beliefs at the same time.
All best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 - Release Date: 6/11/2008
8:32 AM
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 - Release Date: 6/11/2008
8:32 AM
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
