1868 and Iraq

Lynne Henderson hendersl at ix.netcom.com
Mon Aug 22 18:04:51 PDT 2005


And provisions for "autonomous states?"  That was a major issue in  
fighting  the war, at least for Pres. Lincoln.  Not to mention the fact 
that the Constitution existed already.  Of course the Union did force 
new state constitutions on the confederacy and the Fourteenth and 
Fifteenth Amendments were imposed on them.  And as for punishing the 
South, we gave that up rather quickly, did we not?  (See Foner, 
*Reconstruction*)
Sunnis may have brutalized everyone else, but they too were brutalized. 
  I don't think that's an excuse for ignoring them.   To the extent that 
Sunnis are interchangeable with oppressors, wouldn't  a better 
historical example be how Germany coped with "de Nazification, " or  
Eastern European countries dealing with Communists (or what Germany did 
when it reunited and had to deal with the stasi?)
Lynne Henderson
On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Mark Graber wrote:

> My barbaric thought of the week.  Who cares about the Sunnis.  Instead
> of thinking about 1787, let's think about 1868.  Does anyone object 
> that
> the victorious North essentially imposed a constitution on the south
> (see Bruce Ackerman on just how much real consent took place south of
> the Mason-Dixon line).  Last time I looked, the Sunnis spent a good 
> deal
> of time in the previous regime brutalizing everyone else.  Of course,
> not all Sunnis were complicit any more than all southerners were
> complicit with slavery.  But given past practice and the model of 1868
> wouldn't it be enough for the US and our Shiite allies to say,"this
> constitution is reasonable fair to you, and so we are going to enforce
> it."  Of course, maybe the Shiites can cause more trouble than defeated
> southerners, so there is pragmatic reason for wanting more consent, but
> does the 1868 model really call for honest consent from the defeated
> faction.
>
> Mark A. Graber (in his Stalinist phase)
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>



More information about the Conlawprof mailing list