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

Far too many times, online debaters are apathetic in their research and argument; I appreciate my opponent's efforts to make this round a stellar one. First, I contest one of Con's definitions. He used the Wikipedia definition of Declaration of War to mean ". .. a formal act by one nation. .. against another. " This definition is inappropriate because the CSA was never legally its own nation; it was still a part - although they denied it - of the USA. After all, the conflict is called the Civil War and this infers one nation fighting against itself. Don't believe me? Consider the French Revolution. It was also a Civil War because it posited the French monarchy against the French commoners. How about Britain during the 1600's? King Charles I was deposed during a Civil War between his loyal Cavaliers and his enemies the Roundheads. Also in British history, the War of the Roses, the Golden Revolution, and the American Revolution (which Con used for one of his arguments that I will shortly address). My point is that the American Civil War was similar to other, foreign civil wars because all of them had one thing in common: one nation fighting among itself. If Con's incorrect definition is accepted, then it implies that the American Civil War was two nations combating each other. That, as I have shown, is simply not the case. Therefore, I order Con to revise it. Second, while on definitions, Con did not define "pursuit of war", which I think is strange considering that it is part of the resolution we're debating. So, Con, please define it! Now, having "dispensed with the formalities" (Source: Darth Vader, Star Wars Episode V), I will rebut Con's two contentions. They are: "The 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" 1. The CSA's secession is justified by Moral Law. Con supported his claim by quoting from the Declaration of Independence. He also favorably compared the American Revolution to the Civil War. I will begin with the Declaration of Independence. Yes, I concede that people have a moral right to disband from any government that infringes on their humans rights. However, as Con himself stated, "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]. " The South left to protect their "right" to slavery! Slavery is not a human right, even if it was considered so by some back then. Con's moral argument is ridiculous because the South seceded mainly to secure an IMMORAL "right! " Therefore, the Declaration of Independence is inapplicable to the South and does not support Con's argument. As for the American Revolution, I discussed this in my objection to Con's definitions. The American Revolution was comprised of two governments (not one because that would infer a civil war) combating each other. If Con contests this fact, I will resort to proving it in Round 3. But I think it's validity is obvious. By contrast, the Civil War was one nation divided against each other. Thus, Con's argument is a fallacious false analogy and ought to be rejected as such. 2. The CSA's secession is justified by Law. My response is simple: What law? The Declaration of Independence? It's not a statutory law, it's a resolution! Proof? Never has the Supreme Court used the Declaration of Independence to decide a case. The D of I has always been used from inspiration, not legal reasoning. However, I have quoted from the "Supreme Law of the Land" (Source: The U. S. Constitution, Article V) and will do so again. PAY CLOSE ATTENTION. This should settle the debate! Article I, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation; . .. " Did you notice the word "Confederation"? What was the South called? Oh, that's right, it was the Confederacy! Here's another important fact: The U. S. Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence! Even if the thirteen original states had the power to secede, it was relinquished, forfeited, conceded, etc. when they voluntarily ratified the U. S. Constitution. All of my sources - which Con failed to address - agree with me. James Madison hated secession. Joseph Story said that the Constitution prohibited secession. And President Abraham Lincoln, although admittedly biased, gave a logical, articulated explanation of why secession is no longer allowed. I have proved this fact and, unless Con can unilaterally nullify the U. S Constitution, I deserve to win this debate on that point alone. Finally, I would like to respond to Con's refutations to my arguments. 1. "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. " Again, the Declaration of Independence is NOT law. It's a resolution which can be used for inspiration, but not for legal proof! Yes, the D of I is a fundamental document, but it is irrelevant to this debate. If anything, the D of I helps my case because the South seceded to defeat an IMMORAL right. Until Con proves that subjugating blacks falls under "life, liberty, and property", then the South's secession remains unjustified. 2. "Though law is an important aspect of everyday life, it is obvious that revolution is neither justified nor permitted by law" Ok, if revolution is not permitted by law, then why do you try to justify the South's rebellion with a "legal right. " Don't you see it! ? Con just contradicted himself! He stabbed himself in the back! Now, regarding the Civil Rights Movement, Con says: "The civil rights movement required that people break the law in order to change the country. " Yes, it did. But that's irrelevant. The difference between the CSA's secession and the Civil Rights movement is crystal clear! The former left the Union to - once again - defend the IMMORAL right of slavery. The latter did mostly non-violent resistance in order to have the U. S recognize its MORAL, human rights. I am sorry, but comparing the CSA's rebellion and the Civil Rights movement's resistance is like saying that apples and oranges are the same. Not only that, but Con's comparison is downright offensive! I demand that Con apologize for tainting the Civil Rights movement to attempt to justify the CSA's slavery. The two historical occurrences are antithetical opposites; they do not belong together! 3. "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. " I did present reasons. Maybe Con was sleeping when he read my arguments? (This is a joke, not a personal attack). Here's what I said: "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. " Contrary to what Con said, an offensive war implies aggression, not justification. Whoever defends is the most likely to be justified, just like when homeowners combat robbers or if Ukraine fought to reclaim Crimea from Russia. Here's the fact: The CSA started the Civil War when it bombarded Fort Sumter in April, 1861. The USA, of course like any rational country, declared war in return. With this knowledge, how can Con's assessment be correct? According to Con's theory, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, the imperialist country was justified simply because it was offensive. That's absurd! Well, as I have shown, Con is incorrect on multiple accounts. I do believe I have settled the debate. Even so, I eagerly await Round 3. - Mr. Speaker.