Num futuro próximo, na Europa...

Ainda hoje, a "Guerra Civil" Americana é vista como uma guerra para libertar escravos. Mas Lincoln nunca expressou essa vontade a não ser tardiamente, porque o que estava em questão era a preservação da União pela força e a negação do Direito de Secessão pelos Estados do Sul. Diga-se até, que a solução defendida por Lincoln era precisamente a expatriação para...a Libéria.

Onde existia toda a certeza nesse Direito, na Constituição, anos mais tarde foi negada por truques de interpretação e à custa de 700 000 mortos.

Num futuro próximo da Europa Federal, vão dizer qualquer coisa como o que seguinte (de alguém - Sandefur - que defende que a Secessão não é legítima do âmbito da Constituição Federalista Americana):

"Unilateral secession is unconstitutional and illegal. The President of the United States is charged with the Constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. If people resist him at point of arms—that is to say, if they initiate force—he has the Constitutional authority to use arms to enforce the law, even if that means killing people."

o autor continua e diz:

"Secession might, however, be a legitimate act of revolution, if it were done to preserve freedom against oppression, as was the case in the American Revolution. That, however, was not the case in the Civil War, because the south seceded, not to preserve freedom, but to perpetuate the enslavement of millions of innocents."

Stephan Kinsella então pergunta:

"if I understand your theory correctly, EVEN IF the South did NOT have slavery, it would STILL not be an act of revolution--because unlike the US revolting from Britain, the South didn't have a reason to revolt, it was not responding to a long train of acts of despotism etc."

Sandefur responde:

"That's right. It would be an initiation of force [by the South]."

Stephan Kinsella, comenta a resposta:

"So, he explicitly admits that whether or not the South had slavery in 1861, their act of secession from the US that atually existed at the time, would have been illegal and NOT a justified act of revolution. How he can continue to maintain that slavery is relevant even to his own theory, I have no idea."

e Thomas DiLorenzo acrescenta:

Sandfur says unilateral secession is always and everwhere illegal and unconstitutional.

But this ignores such facts as that in the Declaration the states are continually referred to as "free and independent," or sovereign. The same is true of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

The word secession is not even in the Constitution, so Sandefur is simpy making this assertion up. In fact, the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not delegated to the federal governemnt to the citizens and the states, allows for secession.

As I document in The Real Lincoln, this was the view of the majority of Northern opinion makers in 1860. Sandefur and his fellow Straussian neocon Lincoln idolaters ignore all of this, however, since it doesn't fit their fairy tale version of history.

He also ignores the fact that Lincoln himself, as well as the U.S. Congress, declared to the world in 1861 that they had no intention of disturbing Southern slavery and that their purpose was "to save the union."

Lincoln idolaters like Sandefur even ignore Lincoln's own words in order to fabricate endless excuses for the empire that Lincoln did more than anyone to create. Lincoln never said he invaded the South to free the slaves; this is all a part of the Straussian fantasy world that smartass Sandefur lives in.