"That iron, iron fist"

"MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."

PS: Quase ao mesmo tempo, Bismarck no que era antes um amontoado de pequenas Nações que constituia a Alemanha (31 depois de Napoleão, cerca de 300 antes de Napoleão) usou o seu "Iron Fist" para numa guerra provocada com a França (Napoleão III) impôr a federalização da Alemanha e a Prússia como sua líder. Dois "Federalismos" (Lição: cuidado com os "federalismos").

Bismarck e Lincoln são companheiros na mesma agenda. A Guerra dita Civil foi o precedente para a necessária nacionalização da política externa-defesa que torna possível depois que em 1898 os EUA iniciem uma guerra contra a Coroa Espanhola por causa da Cuba (outra intervenção externa com o resultado que se conhece décadas depois), acabando depois a anexar as Filipinas (do outro lado do mundo). Primeiro para a "libertar", depois numa luta de 3 anos contra os insurgentes (faz lembrar algo, não?) filipinos (cerca de 100 000 mortos). Na altura, o presidente (protestante) justificou também como necessidade de "cristianizar" (autêntico!)... "esqueceu-se" que já eram em grande maioria ... Católicos.

Vamos lá ouvir CHARLES DICKENS, 1862:

"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."

"Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and that until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale…As to Secession being Rebellion, it is distinctly possible by state papers that Washington considered it no such thing – that Massachusetts, now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede, again and again."