I didn't say "evil" or "enemy."
This is like saying that Alan Dershowitz loves flag burners because he is willing to defend them for burning a flag.
It is like saying Planned Parenthood supports abortion because it supports rights to abortion. In other words it's true.
Or if there's corruption and I say, I don't agree with it personally, but I don't think anything should be done about it, I could be considered to be a supporter or defender of corruption.
I didn't say "love." I said "defend." There's a difference.
I am defending law. The laws of that time protected slavery.
Laws can be changed. One can defend the laws, but also want them to be changed. To attack everyone who hopes to change the laws is to defend the abuses that they are challenging.
There is a right and proper method of doing that. That is what should have been done but wasn't.
To attack everyone who hopes to change the laws is to defend the abuses that they are challenging.
I would suppose that is true, but I thought you were talking about me. I can't recall ever attacking everyone who hopes to change the law except for the Judge in Massachusetts that abolished slavery by creatively "interpreting" the law to mean something it was never intended to mean when it was created.
I consider legal trickery bad whenever it is used, even if it accomplishes a worthy goal.
We should not countenance lies in our legal system.