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