The South was justified in leaving the Union prior to the Civil War.

Con says that secession was illegal because of Article 1, Section 10. That's very interesting, however it is false because when the South left the Union...they were no longer states! Remember, the legality of seccession was, at this point, unclear and as such the legality of it could not be assessed. Article one aplies to only states, the CSA was a different country. Con states that the South was trying to extend slavery. True, and the North was trying to keep it from the new territories. It is interesting that he claims the North had no intetion of abolishing slavery, yet they fought so hard to keep it from spreading? Why wuld they do so if they were indifferent to it? That makes no sense. He also disputes the peaceful intentions of the South. He states that the attack on Fort Sumter shows that the South wanted war. This is a poor objection for two reasons. 1. Because secession was arguably illegal at the time, fort sumter belonged to the CSA and the presence of Northern troops there was an act of war. 2. The CSA did not immediately attack. They gave the North the ability to surrender peacefully.(1)Con says that the North disliked slavery because of the moral aspects of it. Ironically, president Lincoln (a very good representative of the North) supported, prior to the War Between the States, the deportation of all negroes to Africa(2). That is very immoral. Many of them would have probaby died, and the slaves did not WANT to be sent to a foriegn continent. So we can see that for the majority of those in the North, morality was not a reaso for opposing slavery. So what than was the reason? For many, it was a desire for hegemony over the South. Tensions between the North and South had existed even before the revolution. Many wanted to impose their way of life oto the South in order to unite the country. For others, it was viewed as an issue of states rights and they wanted more power to the federal governmnt. Others wanted a pure white nation with no colored people in it, and still others opposed it because t kept negroes down south so they could not be used as a cheap labor supply for Northern factories. Con states that Lincoln did not abolish slavery to punish the south. I concede that Lincoln was opposed to slavery. That is however, irrelevant. What is relevant is that he did not abolish it until the War had begun to punish the South. Con asks me not to say the word "negroes". I shall not submit. The word "negro" is not, in general, offensive and I mean no offense by it. It is just a phrase from my boy-hood. I have a hard time saying "black" or "african-ameican" simply because it was not what I was taught to do. Con states that the language is provacative, however I do not mean it to be so even one bit. Conversely, Con's request for me to be "politically correct" is offensive to me because he is implying that my diction is inferior to his, and that I must live up to his standards. I would ask my Opponent to not say such provovative things. Thank you.Con states that Article 4, section 3 of the Constitution prohibits secession because "It is the implication and subtext of this excerpt that the territory occupied by the United States belongs to the country as a whole ("the country as a whole" being represented by the federal government), and no particular state individually. The limited jurisdiction of the states over the political map does not imply ownership of the land thereof"This is false because that territory NO LONGER BELONGED TO THE UNITED STATES! Using my Opponents logic, Cuba or the Phillipines (which were U.S. possessions at one time) should not be allowed to be nations because the authority of the United States to make regulations to this territory would be lifted. My Opponent has thus far provided no place in the constitution where secession is prohibited.Con states that the Souths desire to keep slavery was immoral. I agree. And the Norths desire to send negroes to Africa where they would be hopelessly lost and likely die was more immoral. Therefore the South was justified in taking the lesser of two evils. Vote Pro.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...