That’s a faulty analogy. Slavery had more supporters and more passionate supporters in 1860 than it had in 1830 or 1800. It had only grown stronger and the assumption was that if the slaveowners got their way it would only get stronger still, and even if it were to be done away with it would only be replaced by slavery under another name. To support the Confederacy and to oppose all measures to weaken slavery was to support slavery.
They have twisted themselves into the most convoluted verbal gymnastics over this to others avoiding the question completely because they know the answer. No. The South would not have ended slavery. Heck, they would have been free to expand further west like they had wanted to.
I think it is a fairly accurate analogy. When people label someone their "enemy", they always characterize their motives as evil.
You are saying I am a "defender of slavery". This is like saying that Alan Dershowitz loves flag burners because he is willing to defend them for burning a flag.
Does Alan Dershowitz love flag burners? I would think he does not.
I am defending law. The laws of that time protected slavery. To defend the law is to defend slavery if people want to see it that way, and clearly this is how you want to see it.
To support the Confederacy and to oppose all measures to weaken slavery was to support slavery.
Because there is no other possible explanation.
And this is why I said:
Anyone who refuses to take the vaccine is "anti-science" and they want other people to get sick. There is no other explanation.