Thanks for the rave. And thanks for the demonstration of "higher law" reasoning, which was common among the antebellum Abolitionists. You start talking about natural law and God immediately. But the Constitution was the social compact among the Peoples who made up the States of the Union. That is the law that governs here -- that, and the laws of the States made under their own sovereignty.
If one believes, like I do, that rights are from God rather than, like you do, that rights come from the power of an individual then there is no possible way I can believe God gave us the right to enslave our fellows merely because we have the power to do so.
Here is where you fall into difficulty. I appreciate that you are committed to the idea of rights, but I think you are falling victim to your own propaganda here.
In the first place, all rights are natural rights that may or may not be recognized by humanity. Free speech was a very iffy proposition in, e.g., seventeeth-century England. Samuel Johnson once remarked, a few years before the American Revolution, that everyone was sovereign in his own mind and free to think what he pleased, even if he weren't free to say it. So saying, he conceded that he might not be free to say what he thought in contemporary English society -- something we are also aware of through the existence of English nursery rhymes like "Little Jack Horner" and "Georgie Porgie", which were loaded with political meaning.
But the fact of the matter, your appeal to "higher law" notwithstanding, was that in Jacksonian America, people not only had the right to an opinion, and to express it, but also to hold persons as property. The desirability of this arrangement inclines strongly toward your side of the argument, just as the existence of latifundia in both Rome and America (we called them "plantations" once, and now "corporate farms") is problematic and probably bad for society. But you can't bark at the right of those people to hold human property in the context of their own laws and society.
This is what I talk about when I accuse people on your side of snarking at people's rights and invoking "higher law" and other appeals to deity to truncate them, for reasons that had nothing to do with deus vult, the Bible, Biblical morality, or anything else.
I could do the same thing to you by insisting that your views are an affront to heaven, and that I am justified in calling down the Mods on your posts, just because your posts are uncongenial to me. I would have given you the same justice Lincoln gave the South if I furthermore sent an army to ravage your home state and burn your place to the ground, for daring to contradict me.
The Constitution was the creation of the American people designed to solidfy the Union. It papered over the contradiction slavery posed to it with the understanding that slavery would eventually fade away. That understanding was abrogated by the Slaver leadership which began to defend it at all cost. It loved Slavery more than the Union and its attempt to destroy that Union and that Constitution cost the South immense suffering and I will never excuse, accept or defend it.
There was never any Right to hold slaves only the POWER to do so. Given the existence of those who studied ancient history in the South the example of the latifundia should have been sufficient to change. That was the destruction of Rome since it destroyed the basis of its Republican army when the farms of the soldiers were bought out from under them while on campaign. They returned from the Punic War to find their land worked by slaves. The region's subsequent decline still plagues Italy over two millenia late.
Of course I can criticize any era I am not a multiculturalist believing that all cultures and societies are equal.
Lincoln was not there to give justice to the South but to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and Union. He did give Justice to the Slaverocracy, Thank God.
One can only hope ...
... that they understand the validity of that analogy.