They can’t show one bit of evidence that the South ever offered to ban slavery if they were offered compensation for their slaves. In fact, they were committed to the expansion of slavery into territories where it was banned…when they were unsuccessful in doing so they seceded. Lincoln had, to that point, assured the South that he would not accede to efforts by abolitionists to ban slavery. It was the Confederacy that initiated the war…firing on Fort Sumter, S. Carolina.

The Brits never compensated the French, Spanish or Brazilian slave ships they captured after they banned the slave trade. Slavery worldwide was almost in all cases simply outlawed…sometimes with a phased in period of enforcement. Compensation usually occurred only when there was no lawsagainst slavery and it was done, rather ineffectively, by private parties. While it resulted in the freeing of individuals, it usually resulted in the creation of a NEW increased market for slaves…with increased prices and more captures.

It makes about as much sense as paying ransom to kidnappers while making kidnapping legal! Nice use of libertarian economics without any consideration of the criminal aspects of denying people freedom.

Paul has not only presented a wing-nut revisionist version of history, he demonstrates just how irrational his thinking is about markets and human rights are.

And what’s really odd is that he seems to think that this would have a proper role of the Federal Government? Buying slaves and emancipating them? Where is THAT stated in the Constitution?

There have been plenty of regimes that treat drug offenders far worse than we do (going so far as automatic execution for a first-time, non-violent offense) that can’t really be accused of having a racial motivation behind it.

Drugs tend to make for less productive, more accident-prone workers. Your ability to work and produce is very important to most governments. Even without racism there’s a strong motivation there.