Secession is justified (morally)

Pro has the burden of proof regarding why or how secession is morally justified. I will present arguments in the negation of the aforementioned resolution. Should pro only refute my points without upholding his own, that would be insufficient argumentation, as it does not fulfill his burden. Having said that, I will begin my argument. ClaraficationThe implication of a (pro) secession justification argument is that the parties seceding should be allowed to secede in peace and without military intervention. .. for if the body in which the secession occurs is to be moral, it must not interfere with the supposed rights of the seceding entity. Since rights are unconditional, the argument cannot be that secession is justified when . .. .. Con however, not believing in a right to secession, can indeed make the arguement that secession is permissible when. .. .. If my opponent refers to the U. S Revolution, he should be prepared for this clarification to take effect. Secession and Anarchy Lincoln stated in 1861 during his inaugural address:" Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. " (1) As Lincoln explain, secession is rule by the minority. One small faction of a larger sovereign cannot individually decide to claim all sovereignty over itself. My proof exists on observance, for if such a claim were true, what would prevent mere households from becoming nations? What is secession? In essence, secession is a mere disempowerment of authority. If a right existed to remove something from the rule of an authority at will, then the authority has no authority! Entities would simply declare their independence whenever decisions were not to their liking. If South Carolina can declare independence from the U. S, then a county can declare its independence from South Carolina,. .. and then a city can declare its independence, and then individuals can declare independence. What then happens to authority? It has no power. There is no rule, no government, and what is left is the essence of anarchy, anyone can rule themselves at a moments notice. As an article published in the New York Times (1860) stated: "The ties that bind the States together will first be severed, and respect for law and order correspondingly weakened. Obligations to municipal laws will next be repudiated by a refusal on the part of the people to obey them. Next will follow the obligations between individuals, till neither persons nor property are longer respected, and forms of government become a mockery, because they can neither command respect nor enforce obedience. " (2)Perpetual UnityIf we liken the Constitution to somewhat of an interminable contract, a few points arise. Under the following syllogism, we can prove that there is no right to secession. 1. The Constitution was a document of perpetual unity.2. The states ratified the Constitution. 3. The states ratified perpetual unity. THE LOGIC HERE BEING: . .. .if a state ratified perpetual unity and submission of sovereignty to both the Constitution and federal government, then it cannot claim such rights later. One who has signed a contract cannot then go against that contract, not in the legal sense, but in the moral sense. It would be unfair to default on that which you agreed to. The Constitution was a document of perpetual UnityTAKE NOTE: The plans and concepts of the Articles of Confederation were not relinquished, but rather fixed and expanded in the Constitution "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION"(3) . .. .Therefore, the concepts of a weak federal government were the only things to be revised by the Constitution, every other concept carried over into the Constitution under " to form a MORE perfect union" ("more" being additive, not reductive). The full name of the Articles of Confederation is The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (4). Thus, the Articles called for perpetual unity. If the Constitution was to perfect the perpetual union already set forth by those Articles, then how could it allow or condone secession? It couldn't. I believe that chief justice Salmon Chase (1869) explains this point far better than I. "By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual. " And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union. " It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? "(5)Furthermore, It is explicitly stated in Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution that:"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation. .. " (6)Why would the Constitution explicitly prohibit the aforementioned actions? . .. because they are all acts of complete sovereignty and individualism. They all submit jurisdiction and sovereignty to powers other than the United States. Secession is the submission of jurisdiction and sovereignty of a state unto itself, which is still a power other than the United States! Upon the intentional vagueness of the Constitution, the drafters made it a point to specifically outline the prohibition of this concept. Why would submission of sovereignty to a force other than the United States suddenly be made acceptable in the case of secession? All the 13 original states ratified the Articles of Confederation, from which the declaration of perpetual unity was made obvious,. .. and they all ratified the Constitution, from which perpetual unity was more nuanced, but present none the less. The States clearly conceded to the idea. In conclusion, perpetual unity is indeed a part of the Constitution, albeit it is nuanced. .. (and remember that vagueness, nuance and interpretation was the PURPOSE of the Constitution) Therefore, the Constitution was a document of perpetual unity in nuance and intention, and it was not so discrete that a state could claim ignorance. The States Ratified the ConstitutionThere is not a large necessity for elaboration on this particular premise, as it is a statement of fact. (7) Applying to those states that were admitted into the union: Upon terroritoral aquisition of the land to which the state resides, acceptance to the Constitution was made immediately and automatically,. .. as "the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. (7) . .. and those territories are a part of the United States of America. ConclusionHaving proved the first two premises of my syllogism, we have arrived at the conclusion that the states ultimately ratified perpetual unity. Referring back to the meaning of this conclusion, even from a moral eye, one cannot default on that which he agreed to. Furthermore, I reiterate on the point that secession is the essence of anarchy, for it removes the power of authority. I rest my argument on this two points for the time being, and await my opponent's response. Sources 1. . http://www.bartleby.com...2. . http://www.nytimes.com...3. . http://www.u-s-history.com...4. . http://www.ushistory.org...5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...6. . http://archives.gov...;7. . http://en.wikipedia.org...