In fact, it’s almost perfectly analogous.

The Southern States wanted to leave. The Northern States said, “You’re not going anywhere,” and killed them until they submitted. Period.

If you’re going to have an intelligent debate about the Civil War, you have to start with something like the husband beating his wife analogy, and accept it, because that’s what it was. You have to acknowledge that’s what it was and then move out from there: “Okay, yes, it was like a husband beating his wife to get her to stay in the marriage, BUT here is why that was actually legal, or the higher good, or the best thing that could have happened.” (And yes, I realize you did do this somewhat in the end of your post.)

Confronting the realities of the Civil War is uncomfortable. It should be uncomfortable. Popping off some glib little dismissal doesn’t erase those realities.

I myself am not strongly anti-Lincoln or pro-Lincoln, but what I do believe strongly is that the United States Civil War was a nuanced, complicated thing that deserves to be wrestled with in all of its nuance and complexity. When I look around at the current conversation around the Civil War, I’m far more discouraged by the extent to which people have been encouraged and allowed to become lazy in their thinking about it than I am about whatever particular side people are arguing.