Secession & The American Civil War

The degree to which evils are sufferable is subjective, and can only truly be judged by those that are suffering. Furthermore, degree (even though it was extreme indeed) is of less importance when every condition for which our Constitution existed was not being met. 1)You say the North refused to recognize slavery but this is obviously an erroneous view as slavery was legal in four northern states fighting against the confederacy. (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland & Delaware) The north clearly recognized the right to own a slave and was obviously not fighting to take that right away. 2) I missed something regarding the evenly split blame, could you elaborate? 3) A basic understanding of economics will leave no doubt that the abolition of slavery would be disastrous to every southerner. Their entire economy was wholly dependent on the application of slave labor. When rich people aren't buying and investing in things it is bad for ALL business, not just the slave owners'. 4) Arguing in defense of inciting armed rebellion in southern states by indicating it was likely to occur anyway is a straw man argument at best. If this view has any weight then you could justify firing on Fort Sumter simply by saying war was likely to occur regardless. 5) If reasonable reparation was considered I challenge my opponent to produce one instance of a congressional discussion specifically considering the idea of reparations to the South before the Civil War. 6) "With that said, those are not major issues... At all. The Founding Fathers made it clear that secession is an option only when there is tyranny, and the South was not under tyrannical Northern rule - if anything, they were the tyrants." The only clarity our founding fathers provided in regards to secession was to leave it as an unnamed right to be retained by the people. Again, secession is not revolution, the terms are not interchangeable. Revolution is universally illegal, secession is universally legal. The north did not recognize secession as a right specifically because to do so would mean they would have to accept disunion, where by calling it a rebellion allows for the contingency of war. And again, if The South were tyrants by nature of owning slaves, then as I have already shown, The North were also tyrants. 7) "I do not agree a 'right to secede' exists in the Constitution; the founders laid out the people's right to secede in the Declaration of Independence, and had no need to repeat it in another document." I will first point out that nothing in the Declaration of Independence is considered law and as such, it only espouses american ideals, it does not attempt to define any legal right, Secession, revolution, or otherwise. I will then rest my case on my cited differences between secession and revolution (above). 8) "The purpose of that amendment [the 9th] was to note that there are many more rights not listed in the Constitution, and those cannot be attacked by government. Right, like the right of secession, how again does this help prove secession was illegal? 9) "The North was under no obligation to leave its forts and military installations....It would be wrong to say the South had a right to steal what amounts to installations bought and paid for by residents of the United States.. I have addressed this point twice now in observing that Confederate emissaries were sent to treat on ALL financial matters resulting from their separation. These emissaries were categorically rejected because to do otherwise would effectively mean the US was recognizing the CSA as a country with rights to deal on such matters, rather than a rebellion, to which governments afford no such luxury. What this means is that United States policy precluded ANY possibility of allowing The South to pay for these forts and installations regardless of how many peaceful attempt were made at it. 10) "The South got angry that the North refused to leave and attacked (clearly showing they had no intention of peace in the first place), which unfortunately sparked a war." In a simple sort of way this is true. The South, like any country, got angry that a foreign, armed, and hostile force refused to leave its sovereign territory and fired upon it as a result. If China parked a nuclear sub in the Chesapeake Bay, refused to leave, and attempted reinforcement by armed force, would the US be guilty of starting a war when we blew it up? Lets also consider that Lincoln's own Secretary of State was advising the SC authorities that Sumter would be peacefully evacuated right up until a day before the resupply ships were seen off its shore. Whether or not not Seward was being duplicitous or insubordinate is debatable, but its also completely irrelevant to the confederates who then had every reason to believe they were being intentionally deceived. 11) "I agree with you 100%.........I do not think the Declaration of Independence was an act of revolution..........failed to meet criteria to secede." This whole paragraph seem to be trying to prove similarities between secession and revolution which I will agree are unmistakable. However, similar characteristics don't prove something is the same. Again, I will rest this case on the arguments I've yet to hear a reply to. 12) "I agree that representatives can facilitate the process, but there was no justification to secede (ie. no tyranny). I have demonstrated ample justification (compromise after compromise with ultimately illegal processes and northern failure to meet conditions set fourth in our constitution) I have also proven secession is a right, thus tyranny (nor any other justification) is required for its application. 13) I reject the idea that a government can truly be considered representative when the options of a large number of citizens (in this case, the slaves) are completely ignored. I have proven slavery was legal and thus, slaves and freed men were not recognized as citizens by either party in accordance with our constitution. If your argument stands, you will have to admit the illegitimacy of everything the United States did prior to the 13th amendment. 14) "The South's did indeed use blackmail. Their threat to secede obviously threatened the removal of strategic points belonging to the US (like Fort Sumter), military installations, trade agreements/revenue, etc., all of which belonged to the whole of the country." Once The South seceded, the forts and military installations are no longer strategically important to the United States (unless you want to invade The South). And trade routes residing in say, Mississippi and upon her rivers, were no more the rightful property of the US government before secession than they were after it. 15) "I do not see any proof slavery was supposed to be legal in the territories" Look no further than to the creation of any slave state that did not exist as one of the original 13 colonies. Those states adopted the institution of slavery because Americans moved into those territories while freely carrying slave property along with them. I would also point out that making the practice illegal required the creation of laws, thus naturally assuming its legality at any time prior. 16) "The US government obviously saw some use for it [Fort Sumter], as they refused to leave and continued stocking it" You're right about that, the very specific use Lincoln saw for the fort was to maneuver Davis into firing the first shots of The Civil War. All three of my originally cited sources agree on this issue. Hardly a noble purpose. 17) "Could you provide solid proof behind your asserting of land deed restrictions?" It's in "The Rise and Fall of The Confederate Government" but for the life of me I can't find my copy to give you the pages. I did locate a web page that covers the issue and includes the actual resolution though, it's towards the bottom of the page. http://www.civilwarhome.com... Thanks again con, back to you!