Texas Republican congressman Ron Paul (14th district – Texas) has said “you can’t create wealth from a printing press.” But you are free to use it, once it is printed. There’s a before and; an: after.
Since our own presidencies have passed amendments to the US constitution, allowing for a separate branch of government that oversees the nation’s economic sustainability, the FED has overtaken many of the governments actions. People don’t listen to Ron Paul.
As of recently, Ron Paul has also spoken vehemently for Secession, against Abraham Lincoln and, even, the Civil War. His expressed intent, so vividly distilled in his own caleidoscopic rhetoric and logic, is not to diminish the most profound inter-national war, of our 250 year history as a nation, but only to be clear and lucid. Not, to always accept what government thinks is best.
Part of the problem, that congressman Ron Paul has with the traditional view of the Civil War as fought over the issue of slavery, is wrong. In his estimation. He believes, as do many others on the educational level and the historical spectrum, that the War between the States was in fact over the encroachment of government on the polis. The denial of liberty to free men. Monarchism.
Abraham Lincoln, if read closely, was not the proponent of abolition, as many nowadays believe. In fact; Lincoln was willing to concede- briefly, initially, haphazardly- that would the Southern States agree to the tariffs in place for import and export, he would sign a constitutional amendment which would make slavery unvanquishable in the South. Later, when it became clear that the Southern members of the Union would secede, Lincoln withdrew.
Doing away with the issue of slavery between the white and black races, was not the reason the North and South went to war against each other. It was over states’ rights. Where federal power is no longer admitted to control. This was the impetus for South Carolina to become rebel red.
Dr. Ron Paul (whose son is congressman Rand Paul) has stated and restated, that the North should have simply bought the slaves from the South. Economical. Putting hard money into the Southern states. Freeing the slaves from servitude. Not coercing slave holders from giving up private property. That is the retrospective on these events.
The notion is not all together applicable, since buying slaves by the government would have opened up the issue of even who- accepting people as merchandise- can buy whom.
Also, another disturbing fact, is that Lincoln never was hard against slavery- at all. But wars change men. Wars change circumstances from one bullet to the next cannon ball. Americans are aware of this. And so was Lincoln, the commander-in-chief, who was all but a literate lawyer. He distorted war aims, so often done by those with power to wield, to justify his aims with his means.
Besides this idea, all together, is also the underlying effect of Jefferson Davis having been sworn-in, before Lincoln became President. Lincoln, eventually, was also shot to death by an assassin before the Southern States could completely surrender. This makes quite evident, that Southerners, probably, would not have sold their slaves to an illegitimate figurehead such as Abraham Lincoln. To anyone, by coercion.
But Ron Paul favors the newer ideas of capitalism, ones that were not around in 1861. His own reasoning is sound, but not its application to changing history. It can’t be done. Couldn’t have been done then.