Sorry to barge in, but the problem I’m seeing is that you’re playing around with the definition of “literalists” to bring them in and out of existence to suit your argument. They did exist as slavers, but now they don’t exist at all?

You’ll get three distinct interpretations of Revelations because the way it’s written is nearly impossible to interpret literally, not that that stops them from trying. Even if all three of them have an overtly incorrect or even just subtly varied literal interpretation, that doesn’t absolve them of the intent to be a literalist. They can even adapt their own interpretation if you can make a compelling argument that your interpretation is “more” literal than theirs (ie. more accurate). Literalism is a vital component of their belief in the Bible’s credibility as a divine document.

Call them smart, stupid, good, bad, pretty, ugly, or whatever, but they exist, they endeavor toward literalism, and they are the people one refers to as literalists when one says, “I don’t even particularly like literalists,” just as one can define who they’re referring to when they say, “atheists use the term.”

However minor their numbers, don’t imagine that hardline literalists (regardless of the accuracy of their interpretation) all just went extinct after the Civil War. It’s disingenuous to disqualify them from the definition of the word in order to dismiss the word from the debate.

Everyone rightfully wants to disown their ugly outliers, but no one should pretend they flat out don’t exist.