In Defense of the Confederate States of America (CSA)

Thanks for the debate, Pro. An interesting tidbit that makes this debate somewhat ironic is that I have several ancestors who fought for the South, including one in my direct male line. Onto the debate:=My case= Both of my contentions completely stand and should lead to a negative ballot. I. The reason was immoralPro continues to argue without any warrant that the war was over states rights but once again has completely ignored my rebuttal that the South did not secede just to prove it could. It seceded because there was an issue that sparked the split and my analysis and mainstream historical thought shows that the issue was slavery. Pro argues that the South was going to abolish slavery anyway but recall that HE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THIS AT ALL IN ROUND. All he did was assert it and link some sources, but I'm debating Pro not his sources. Pro argues that the South needed slavery and that abolishing slavery was so bad that it "ruined" the South, then turns around and tells us that the South was going to be rid of slavery. Not to mention that slavery was enshrined in the Confederate Constitution. Moreover Pro ignores my argument that even if this was true, you can still vote Con because the *initial* reason for secession was in defense of slavery, thus rending it immoral. This contention stands and is going to lead to a con vote. II. ConstitutionPro tries to argue that applying the Texas v. White decision to the legality of secession is the equivalent of punishing some ex post facto, but this is simply wrong. It's not the same because the issue of secession had *never* been ruled on by the courts. It was an issue where the contract was unclear which does *not* mean that it was legal. The states agreed to a *contract* when they were admitted to the Union, which was the Constitution. The ruling was not that secession was now illegal, it was that it was *never* legal under the terms of the contract the States all agreed to upon admission to the Union. Pro argues that even today, it's unclear as to when nations can legally fracture which serves only to reinforce my case. The issue was unclear, so the South had *no right* to start firing on Federal property. Thus the action of secession was illegal which puts the South in the wrong, legally. Let's go over the facts in the round. The South seceded for an immoral reason, did not have the right to secede, and fired the first shots. They were unquestionably in the wrong by any standard. =Opponents case= My opponents case is completely in shambles at this point. You can vote Con by default as he's failing to meet his burden of proof. His only arguments are that the North didn't have to end Slavery by war, and that capitalism in the North was bad. The first argument fails because the North had *no choice* but to go to war because it's territorial integrity was at stake and it's fort was attacked by the South. The North was fighting to preserve the Union and the South would've never accepted a peace offering without slavery anyway. The North offered one, the South rejected it. The second argument is bogus. Pro argues absurdly that working voluntarily for a wage is the same as being owned by someone. I will not argue that conditions for workers in the North were ideal and that the reforms made since the progressive era were necessarily bad, but will reiterate my previous arguments that even if this was true is has *nothing* to do with the Civil War's morality, and that if this were actually true thousands of slaves wouldn't risk everything to try and escape to the North. If life in the North was really worse than life as a Slave in the South, we would've seen the return of white indentured servitude. That didn't happen. The resolution is completely negated.