The Civil War South did not have the legal right to secede from the Union.

--1. The 10th AmendmentMy opponent heavily emphasizes the 10th Amendment's supposed power to mysteriously grant unconditional powers of unilateral secession indefinitely to the states or the people. Despite the fact that I clearly pointed to the Constitution in Article VI, Paragraph 2 and Article IV, Section 4 in the previous round, my opponent declares that "the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. "Not so. The mere fact that secession is not explicitly mentioned does not indicate its validity. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution reads, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation. .. " [1a], clearly prohibiting, for example, Kentucky or Missouri joining the CSA. My opponent mistakenly claims that I "failed to mention even one" example of a dissenter of secession (e. g. Madison, Lincoln)—an irrelevant point, anyway, regarding the legality of secession. On the other hand, my opponent has completely dropped my earlier arguments concerning (a) the Union preceding the states, (b) Article VI, Paragraph 2 and Article IV, Section 4 as it relates to maintaining the Union, and (c) the power of the spirit of the law superseding that of the letter of the law, in that the Constitution, for the purpose of "form[ing] a more perfect Union," [1a] cannot logically endorse its own arbitrary, unconditional destruction. These arguments must be addressed, and thus far overwhelmingly favor Pro.2. State Nullification and Reduction of Federal PowerMy opponent poses nullification, beginning with an uncited and unspecified claim that it "has been proclaimed legal by many of the Founders. " This cannot hold water without further support. And indeed, states do have the "right to dissent" (edited from "descent") from the federal government, but that certainly does not imply a right to secession. Again, he mentions an irrelevant point about slavery, and merely mentions the "Kentucky Resolution" and "the States' response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1898" without explaining how it pertains to the legality of secession. Thus far, there is no reason his arguments have any traction. In his third paragraph, my opponent now also concedes that the right of secession defeats the purpose of federal government before qualifying that the express purpose of the Bill of Rights was to indeed reduce the same government in question. By admitting such, my opponent has not only allowed that secession is a certifiably detrimental policy, but contrived the Bill of Rights not as a guarantee of American freedom and civil rights, but a 'get out of the Union free' pass without substantial evidence. My opponent (without citation) brings up the state ratification conventions, during which Virginia attempted to reserve a later right to secede from the Union. I point to Texas v. White, in which Chief Justice Chase writes, "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. .. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States" [2a]. That which holds for Texas does so for Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, or any other state. Unilateral secession is null and void. Period. Finally, it should be noted that my opponent fails to acknowledge another of my arguments, i. e. that the unconditional, unilateral secession that Con defends ultimately leads to anarchy, as expressed by Lincoln.3. Declaration of IndependenceFortunately, my opponent himself concedes that the Declaration is "not a binding document. " Merely pointing out Thomas Jefferson's rhetoric also does not prove a potent argument for the legality of secession. On the other hand, if semantics are to offer any hints to the legality of secession, the opening Preamble to the Constitution goes, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union. .. " [3a] Certainly, at least in terms of how legally "binding" a document is, the Constitution's rhetoric supersedes the Declaration, and indicates that the union precedes that of the states legally and chronologically. Furthermore, the Declaration states that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it [government], and to institute new Government. " (a) My opponent fails to show how the 1861 Union was "destructive" by any means, and (b) is incorrect in declaring that the Declaration implies an "intended right to secession. " Jefferson refers to Locke's political philosophy from the Second Treatise on Government [3b] in terms of the moral right to revolution, and not necessarily to unilateral secession, certainly not explicitly, implicitly, or otherwise. Pro clearly wins this argument.4. Supreme Court is BiasedNo, it's not. My opponent disregards the Supreme Court, making an unsubstantiated claim that it stepped beyond its bounds (how? ) and that it "injected bias" in its ruling (again, how? ). He goes on to promptly dismiss the Court as merely "useful," and again simply asserts that "we cannot rely solely on Supreme Court rulings. "The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. The Constitution of the United States clearly establishes the Supreme Court, as its name would suggest, with ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all courts concerning federal issues [5a]. With the power of judicial review and origins clearly tied to the very core of the Constitution, the Court has the final say in matters of legality and Constitutionality. My opponent not only incorrectly dismisses that my argument "rel[ies] solely on Supreme Court rulings," self-evident to the contrary from Round 2, but he has completely fumbled in addressing my court case examples of Texas v. White and McCulloch v. Maryland and entirely fails to provide evidence of the unreliability of the Supreme Court. My original argument still stands and alone refutes the entire Con contention.5. The Constitution is SilentRefer to above arguments. My opponent also tosses an irrelevant, unconnected, and uncited statement concerning Lincoln's views on state secession, and goes on to claim without explanation that the Constitution must explicitly prohibit secession in order to support Pro, in effect attempting to push the burden of proof to the Pro. Without additional evidence, Con cannot win this argument, and thus Pro should.6. Revolutionary MentalityI do show why the right of secession is not a direct descendant of the "Revolution mentality" that founded the United States; by the same token, my opponent accuses I haven't shown the difference but himself never has. To reiterate and expand: The colonies of Great Britain in North America were not equal partners within the British empire or contracting agents agreeing to a contract. Their legal existence came from the crown; they did not form it as a founding party or join it as an independent state [6a]. The revolutionaries grounded their argument on a natural right to revolution (Locke), not a legal right to secession. --As I have repeatedly demonstrated, the South did not have the legal right to secede from the Union, and thus I urge a PRO vote. --References: 1a. . http://www.archives.gov... 1b. . http://www.constitution.org... 2a. . https://supreme.justia.com... 3a. . http://www.archives.gov... 3b. Becker, Carl. The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas. 1922. Page 27. 4a. . http://www.supremecourt.gov... 6a. Osgood, Herbert Levi. The American colonies in the seventeenth century, (3 vol 1904-07).