[JesperRavn]

Whit if it was really necessary to do these acts in order to prevent worse atrocities (e.g. what would occur if the White people were permitted to leave Haiti, but then garnered support while abroad and returned with armed forces)?

Certainly many civilians were killed in WW2, ostensibly to further the war effort and thus prevent a worse outcome of the Axis winning.

At the very least, we should judge this in the context of the terrible barbarism committed against Black slaves.

[asperger0102]

And by the same token let's judge trans-atlantic slave trade in the context of the terrible barbarism of human trafficking. Given how ancient and modern history is littered with instances of racially motivated massacres, one might think you could find a more accurate example from WW2 to illustrate the idea of a larger population destroying a smaller one on the basis of 'what if this is really necessary for the X people'. I understand that your point is a small expense today avoids a greater expense tomorrow. It's just that reasoning isn't normally extended to wide-scale murder/rape; though when it is it's usually mitigated with sentences that often begin, 'At the very least...'.