On the slavery point, I would recommend broadening the perspective from just the recent history of white owners of black slaves to the greater history of slavery. For example, the example of ancient Rome and Greece. At least, if you're interested in a defense of slavery -as such- as opposed to just how Americans/Europeans did it.

Of course, Roman slavery still had plenty of problems but it's significantly easier to find examples of humane and (relatively) equitable treatment of slaves (who could be well-educated and own their own property) in Rome than in Europe/early America. And then there was the prostitution/torture/slave soldiers...

I don't know the details in Rome, but in much of antiquity, slavery was what would be considered a war crime now. It didn't need defending, any more than the other elements of warfare.

> the other side is never Snidely Whiplash,

Well put. But take it a step further - had you been raised in the antebellum South, or had you been Nixon's friend - would have arrived at the same moral conclusions? For the same reasons? It's easy to condemn "the alien other" - it's much harder to reflect on one's own beliefs and the peers that hold them.

Absolutely, I would likely have come to the same conclusions as my neighbors. But not because the arguments were convincing.

Also re: slavery I would agree with your characterization of most defenses of (American) slavery. The next natural question follows: what to do about it? Have you heard of the 1835 postcard campaign? https://www.econtalk.org/munger-on-slavery-and-racism/

In that case, loudly and publicly condemning groups of people tends to cause them to circle the wagons and double down on their positions. I think there's a lesson for today there as well.