The argument was a moral reasoning questioning, not an argument about history. I actually think slaves would've been justified in killing their masters as i'd consider enslavement to be a declaration of war and would justify those murders as a resistance movement. The further moral question was whether that could then be extrapolated out to everyone else in society including children and people who didn't own slaves - Tim seemed to suggest it did, I think that's a more complex argument to make - that's why I threw the 9/11 morality question at him, to test the validity of his thinking across multiple situations.

And yes, we have the history we were given, but there's no use playing in a subjunctive. Perhaps there's a parallel universe in which a race war did break out in the 1820s and a Spartacus figure emerged and the 20th Century was different. Maybe the slaves were emancipated and peace reigned supreme. Or maybe the rebellion was crushed and they were served inequality, death and poverty. I don't think you can look at the lives of slaves in the 1820s and the lives of BIPOC in 2020 and draw a comparison that things are worse now than they were - the civil rights movement perpetuated some good, albeit limited and not as much as either of us would like.

And regards other people. I have no company to keep as such. As a centre ground writer I get attacked by conservatives, liberals, whites blacks and asians. On one day I was accused of being a white supremacist and a race-baiting modern day black panther by two people who read the same article. What other people want to think is up to them and not really any of my business.

You were doing very well until that last line - there's nothing wrong with debating a position, but lobbing in an 'ad-hominem' attack and then running off to the hills is a poor way of arguing. I don't think it makes anyone look foolish, but it does sugggest a certain 'hit-and-run' approach to debate that weakens your position.