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

Greetings Arrowjaw, I eagerly look forward to having my first debate with you. Resolved: "The United States of America (USA) was justified in its declaration and pursuit of war against the Confederate States of America (CSA) in the early 1860s" In order to uphold the above resolution, I must successfully prove that both of the aspects contained within are justifiable. For declaration of war, I will offer a thorough legal argument in favor of the USA. For the pursuit of war, I will offer one other argument in favor of the USA. I will begin with the former. Declaration of War: The USA is justified in declaring war against the CSA because the latter unlawfully seceded from the union. Since the adoption of the U.S Constitution, Northern and Southern states struggled to maintain unity over several issues: "In the spring of 1861, decades of simmering tensions between the northern and southern United States over issues including states" rights versus federal authority, westward expansion and slavery exploded into the American Civil War (1861-65)" (Source: http://www.history.com...) My argument focuses on the clash of rights, namely that the CSA did not have the constitutional right to secede. The first evidence appears in Article IV, Section 3, which states that: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." Notice two things about this provision. First, only admission into the union is mentioned; nowhere in the U.S Constitution is there stipulated a process for secession from the Union. Thus, considering that the purpose (according to the Preamble) of the U.S. Constitution was to "... form a more perfect Union" (which infers that the lenient Articles of Association were imperfect), there existed and continues to exist no constitutional allowance for secession. Second, states could have divided or merged within the union on one condition: the state legislatures and Congress must both approve. Theoretically, the Southern states could have "seceded" by merging into a massive, quasi-Confederate state and this would have been legitimate. However, when South Carolina seceded in December, 1860, it committed two egregious offences. On one hand, it outright abandoned the union and, on the other, did so without the consent of Congress. Given the absence of a constitutional provision for secession and also the proved breach of protocol by the Southern states, I conclude that secession is unconstitutional and, therefore, legally unjustifiable. Furthermore, the 10th Amendment does not afford states the ability to secede as said power is explicitly and implicitly withheld. The second evidence for the U.S. Constitution disallowing secession comes from James Madison and Joseph Story. James Madison, who has been deemed the "Father of the Constitution", is a credible authority given his classical education and his involvement in getting the Constitution ratified (i.e. speaking at the state conventions, writing essays for the Federalist, etc.). If anyone knew whether the Constitution permitted for secession, it would be him: "Any federal republic by its very nature invited challenge to central control, a danger that James Madison recognized. He sought at the convention a clause that would prohibit secession from the proposed union once the states had ratified the Constitution. In debate over other points, Madison repeatedly warned that secession or 'disunion' was a major concern." (Source: http://www.history.com...) Joseph Story, who wrote his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, concurred with Madison. In his aforementioned work, Story comments on the meaning of the Preamble: "The language is, 'We, the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.' The people do ordain and establish, not contract and stipulate with each other. The people of the United States, not the distinct people of a particular state with the people of the other states. The people ordain and establish a "constitution," not a "confederation." The distinction between a constitution and a confederation is well known and understood. The latter, or at least a pure confederation, is a mere treaty or league between independent states, and binds no longer, than during, the good pleasure of each. It rests forever in articles of compact, where each is, or may be the supreme judge of its own rights and duties. The former is a permanent form of government, where the powers, once given, are irrevocable, and cannot be resumed or withdrawn at pleasure. Whether formed by a single people, or by different societies of people, in their political capacity, a constitution, though originating in consent, becomes, when ratified, obligatory, as a fundamental ordinance or law. The constitution of a confederated republic, that is, of a national republic formed of several states, is, or at least may be, not less an irrevokable form of government, than the constitution of a state formed and ratified by the aggregate of the several counties of the state." (Source: http://lonang.com... Note: Look for " 352) Therefore, according to both Madison and Story, the Constitution ought not and does not permit secession. A third and final evidence that the Constitution disallows for secession is found in President Abraham Lincoln's First Presidential Address, in which he debunks the legitimacy of secession: "Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union. But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances." (Source: http://www.bartleby.com... , Note: Look for paragraphs 14-16) Thus, according to Lincoln - an esteemed lawyer himself, the Constitution cannot be construed to permit secession. For these three evidences, the CSA did not have the constitutional right to secede. Pursuance of War: I diverted most of my allotted characters toward the issue of secession, where I feel the debate will be most fierce. Yet, there remains the question of whether the USA's wartime actions are indeed justifiable. Let me begin with a brief concession: both the USA and CSA committed immoral acts. The murder, rape, and pillaging of civilians on both sides is a great example. While General Sherman's infamous March to the Sea, in which he indiscriminately slaughtered Confederate soldiers and Carolinian residents, is admittedly indefensible, the CSA had its share of transgression as well. Neither faction completely adhered to the classical rules of Just War Theory. Thus, this is a moot point. Nevertheless, I will argue that the USA's handling of the Civil War is more justifiable than the CSA's. First of all, the CSA was a collection of disaffected states in rebellion, not an actual sovereign government because it's formation by secession lacked legitimacy (as previously established). Consider also that the attack on Fort Sumter was initiated by the CSA vis-"-vis naval bombardment in April, 1861. Accordingly, the USA's efforts to reclaim the rebelling states and repel the belligerent rebels constitutes a defensive war. This is important because, according to both natural and common law, the aggressors' actions are always less defensible than the defendants' counteractions. Think about it. If I attacked someone, the law would label me an assailant and I would consequently be shown little mercy in court. In the same way, the CSA started the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter and thus began an offensive war. Granted, even if the CSA tried to ward off the USA's invasion of the South, it needs to be remembered that the USA was simply retaliating against the CSA's instigation of the Civil War. This matters because it proves that the USA's wartime actions were more justifiable than the CSA's due to the former fighting a defensive war. Second, the Civil War was a war of attrition, meaning that victory could only be achieving by depleting the enemy of the means to fight. The USA did this through military campaigns in the Western and Eastern theatres, blockades of Southern ports, and so forth. Moreover, the USA was more modernized than the CSA and, thus, had a distinct advantage over the mainly agricultural South. Factually, the CSA was doomed to lose even before the Civil War started. But instead of prolonging the war and extenuating the South's suffering, the USA - under Generals Grant and Sherman - plowed through the South and nobly ended the war at Appomattox in 1865. Thanks for reading; I await your response. - Mr. Speaker