Resolved: "The USA was justified in its declaration of was against the CSA"

I look forward to debating you as well.I presume that you accept all rules and regulation put forth and presented in the introduction, as you have accepted my debate.Before I begin I would like to lay out what I plan to present and argue in my case. First and foremost, I will provide definitions. If my opponent does not present counter definitions, he automatically accepts mine. After definitions, I will analyze the resolution and strive to give you, the voter that is, a better understanding of it. After that I will move into my contention on my stance. Lastly I will respond to my opponents arguments.Nota Bene: I am not professing support of any of the CSA's values, nor do I agree with more contemporary versions of the CSA. I am debating this topic because, as the great philosopher and statesman Edward Burke once stated, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."Introduction:As the Con/Against or the Negative, as I will call myself in this debate, I declare that the resolution was false, and that its counter is instead true: "The CSA was justified in its secession from the union."Definitions:In any debate, we must define terms so that we may ascertain what we are actually arguing about.USA: The United States of America; pretty obviousCSA: The Confederate States of America, formed in 1861 and dissolved after its defeat by the USA in 1865; commonly called the Confederacy.Justified: "to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded" [1]Declaration of War (Not "Was" as is in the title of the debate): "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one nation goes to war against another." [2]Resolutional Analysis:In this resolutional analysis I will be explaining the resolution to you so my case makes more sense. Foremost, you must remember that it is my duty to uphold the opposite of the resolution. The opposite of the resolution is as follows: "The CSA was justified in both its secession and following war with the USA" (which I will call the Union for this debate). My first observation of this resolution is the word justified is not defined as a specific kind of justification. It is up to the debaters to show which form(s) of justification their sides uphold the best. My second, and last, observation is that the terminology "declaration of war" also includes action leading up to the declaration of war. My opponent, thus, must justify the actions of the USA before the declaration of war. Contention I: The CSA Was Justified in its Secession from the USA By Moral Right and By LawThe CSA was justified in its secession from the union because, by law, they had the formal right and by human nature they had the moral right. If I may quote the declaration of independence itself: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation" [3]. The most fundamental document in US history, the founding papers which created a new nation from a small collection of colonies outright, states in its starting lines that any country on earth, any body of people or colony or territory has the basic, human right to separate from the patria, the fatherland, from which it was begot. In the final lines of the quote I just stated, it is said that a people should declare why they are separating from their fatherland before they actually do. The CSA most certainly did this. At this link here [4] you can see that each state that seceded presented major reasons why it left the Union.Again I quote the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" [3]. Here it is stated that all people have basic rights. One of these is liberty. Before I explain how liberty ties in with this, let me provide a little background. The north and the south had become increasingly separated since the revolutionary war. The south had remained an agrarian and rural society with predominantly traditional and conservative people. The north, however, had evolved into a booming, industrious part of the US. New political ideas about how the country should be run we very common in the north. Eventually, the north's new progressive ideals began to press down on the south. Slavery (Which I in no way condone or support), a tradition that had been practiced in America since before the British has formed acute colonies there, was deeply frowned upon by northerners. Soon progressives such as Abraham Lincoln began to immerse from the roiling sea of politics. Immediately the progressives took action against slavery. The southern states were very abrasive to this sudden breach of their tradition. They felt that their liberty was being taken away. Civilwar.org made four charts of the major states of the confederacy that explain why the south seceded. 3 out of 4 times the most predominant reason was slavery [5]. This brings us to another quote from the Declaration of Independence: "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [This government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..." [3]. As we can see, according to the Declaration of Independence itself the south was justified and permitted, by law and by moral right to secede from the United States. They had the right to set up their government as they wished. Their basic rights were being trampled upon by the United States, therefore they had every right to leave the Union.Responses To Opponents Arguments:As his first reason or contention for the unjustification of the south's secession from the Union, by opponent presents this statement: "The USA is justified in declaring war against the CSA because the latter unlawfully seceded from the Union." I have shown, in my previous contentions, that the CSA did, in fact, have the ability to secede from the Union under law according to one of the most fundamental documents in history: the Declaration of Independence. The south's secession from the Union is very similar to colonial America's revolution against the British Empire in the late 1700s. The thirteen colonies rebelled against Great Britain because of the British Government's oppression of the people. They rebelled because the British were impressing their views and traditions upon them and forcing unfair taxes on them. The CSA rebelled because the Union was impressing their views of slavery upon them, because the northern government was becoming increasingly estranged from the people of the south, and because the northern politicians were preventing expansion of southern traditions into new territories. As we can see, the similarities between the colonial Americans and the confederates are staggering. The CSA felt the same way our founding fathers did. They felt backed into a corner by the reasons I have stated above. Therefore, according to our US Declaration of Independence, the CSA did have the moral obligation to its people to secede, and the lawful right. My opponent then proceeds to state, and I quote: "My argument focuses on the clash of rights...". He then goes on to state that the constitution does not allow the CSA to secede by law. Though law is an important aspect of everyday life, it is obvious that revolution is neither justified nor permitted by law. For example, let my bring up the American Civil Rights movement which took place in the mid-20th century. The civil rights movement required that people break the law in order to change the country. My earlier example of the colonial Americans applies to this as well. As we can see, revolution cannot be bound by strict law, instead it must be measured by moral urgency, which the southern people most definitely had. Lastly, my opponent brings up the example that the south was on the offensive most of the Civil War, but he does not present any major reasons why this helps his case. Instead, this statement helps my case. The reason is this: an offensive action by rebels shows that they are ready and willing to stand and fight against a formidable enemy. If a rebellion did not have the will power nor the justification to fight like this, they would crumble swiftly. This shows the the CSA had the moral justification to attack the north, and in turn, to defend itself. To conclude:I have shown how the CSA not only had the moral right to secede, but also the lawful one. I have shown how my opponent's case has no warrant as structured law has no place in the moral urgency of rebellion, and I have shown that the south's offensive action in the war shows that their rebellion was justified. Thus have I spoken and thus I await thine response. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.archives.gov...[4] http://www.civilwar.org...[5] http://www.civilwar.org...