Secession is justified (morally)

Note: As my case was to concern the alleged moral binding of U.S. authority over secessionists, I have incorporated my case into my response to my opponent's argument from perpetual unity.Secession and Anarchy(A) Rule of the minorityMy opponent's first claim is that secession would be the rule of the minority over the majority. The alleged justification for this point is that if claims of individual sovereignty were actually true, there would be nothing to stop a single household from becoming a nation unto itself. But how is this minority rule? Any state who wishes to secede is not claiming rule over the athority from which it seceded, but wishing to control themselves. Take as an analogy, me wanting to quit the film club at my school. The act of quitting is the strict excercise of individual sovereignty over myself and not any excercise of authority over the other members of the debate club. I am not telling anyone else to quit or saying that they should all submit to my own authority, only that I refuse to be ruled over by them.This point by my opponent is a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or situation, the rule of the majority or the minority. What about co-existence? Surely my opponent does not believe that Great Britain is actively ruling over th United States because they choose to retain their sovereignty over themselves?(B) Destruction of authorityIn this point, my opponnt takes his entire argument out of a misrepresentation of what authority actually is. He substitutes authority for tyrrany. For isn't that what one is excercising when they do not permit free choice? Rousseau in The Social Contract argued that authority could only justifiably overcome individual sovereignty through conscious contract, that is, through voluntary association. When an authority attempts to overrride individual sovereignty, it is unjustified and wrong. Secession is an excercise of individua sovereignty over the control of an authority, and so is justified if authority was ever originally justified.Perpetual UnityThe Constitution was a document of perpetual unityMy opponent's point here is that whe all the original colonies signed into law the Constitution, which called for perpetual unity, or everlasting submission to the United States Federal Goverment. My opponent claims that this is not a legal argument, but a moral argument. This argment is clearly of a legal nature. My opponent brings justification of the contention from a Chief Justice, the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and basic contractual law. He claims that secession is a violation of a contract, not that one does not have a moral right to do so. However I will choose to respond to it to show that it does little to nothing to help my opponent's case.Since my response to this point in particular also serves as my own case, I will follow my opponent in outlining a syllogism for my case.P1: In order for contracts to be legally and morally binding, explicit consent must be rendered by those of which it directly concerns.P2: The U.S. Constitution did not obtain such consent from those of which the contract directly affected.C1: Secession was not a violation of any morally or legally binding contract.Counterpoint: Contracts and property rightsThe claim that a contract is binding over an entire geographical area, can only be valid if it respects the property rights of those affected by the contract. This is supported by the very concept of contract and property. I cannot form a contract with Bob to take possesssion of your house. The owner of the house must consent for this transaction to occur. So, it follows that drafting a document, for it to be binding, must have the consent of those it seeks to govern. The Constitution was drafted by Respresentatives from the then thirteen colonies. If the contract(Constitution) they signed is to be valid over an entire geographical area, then it must be agreed upon by those it seeks to govern. However right away we see this was not the case. No African Americans, were asked to consent to the contract that would govern over them. They were not given the right to vote until 1870, almost one hundred years after the contract was signed. Women as well had no say in the contract to legally bind them to the power of the USFG. They could not vote until 1920. How is it that such a contract could possible be valid, if it seeks to control those who had no say in it's ratification? Surely, my opponent does not advocate the contracting of others into servility without their explicit consent? Why is the situation different here?ConclusionI have both shown that not only is my opponent's argument for the binding of the Constitution unsound, but that secessionists had no moral obligation to stay within the authority of the United States Constitution. In doing so I have refuted his own case while advancing my own. Also, my opponent's dual points of authority and minority rule have been thus refuted and so I urge a Pro vote.