Secession & The American Civil War

In closing I will outline my opponent's main progression of arguments and demonstrate how each stage is built upon false assumptions. I will show his arguments to be circular, contradictory and untenable under the scrutiny of indisputable historical facts. Upon these facts I will show how my opponent failed to provide any proof of the illegality of Confederate secession, relying instead on abstract arguments which I will show cannot possibly be substantiated. Having shown my opponents case to be no more than opinion I will reassert my original claims while emphasizing con's failure to disprove them. The basic idea Con has attempted to forward is that Secession is a legal right that is only granted by The Declaration of Independence. That it sets forth qualifications for secession that The Confederacy failed to meet. And that subsequently their secession was illegal, thus justifying the invasion of The South, particularly after firing on Fort Sumter. I have shown that our Declaration is a document justifying the American colonies' illegal revolution against the British empire, that it covers nothing in regards to legal secession and have demonstrated the difference in the two terms. I have shown this document does not represent American law, since for this to be possible, it would have to be voted on by a congress that did not exist when the colonies declared themselves independent. Moreover, there are no qualifications set forth to imply legality, only a list of grievances that could not be replicated in any another time in our country's existence. I have also shown that as a right, secession need no further justification then the will of the majority of a sovereign people to exercise it. I have demonstrated compromises that were made over slavery from the very birth of our country and enumerated a number of injustices against southerners. Having only put forth the abstract belief that the declaration establishes legal precedence for secession and necessarily lacking any evidence to substantiate such a profound idea, my opponent has failed to prove to the reader how The Declaration establishes any law, particularly one qualifying secession as it pertains to The South. I have shown my opponents main arguments to be nothing more than an abstract speculation by asserting simple truths to contradict them. This done, my only remaining BOP is to show that my opponent has also failed to offer any supporting facts in his rebuttals to my own original assertions. I demonstrated, via the preamble to this country's entire legal make-up, that the conditions for which it was created were not being met. In some cases (peace & prosperity) my opponent agrees the failure existed but argues the degree was not sufficient. I have clearly demonstrated there is no legal force that quantifies "the degree to which evils are sufferable" and have forwarded the idea that only the sufferers are fit to decide what constitutes "a long train of abuses and usurpations". With other conditions (law) my opponent unabashedly asserts there was no legal obligation to observe the institution of slavery AND that a right to transfer that property to mutually owned territories did not exist. One need only look to the 3/5's compromise (among many others), the Fugitive Slave Act & Sanford Vs Scott to directly contradict this view. With yet another condition (security) my opponent attempts to prove it never existed with what is obviously circular logic. A potential for rebellion to rise (literally anywhere) does not excuse northern attempt to incite armed rebellion against peaceful, law abiding southerners. By this logic, inciting armed rebellion could always be justified by simply showing how a rebellion may possibly occur otherwise. I also demonstrated how our founding fathers covered secession in our constitution under the 9th and 10th amendments. Aside from asserting his belief that only our declaration covers this law, (an idea I have demonstrated to be impossible) Con has forwarded only one other (contradictory) argument to counter this view. This is that we are to believe secession (a right we agree is not mentioned in the constitution) wasn't included as one of the rights expressed by these amendments (even though the 10th specifically notes any right not mentioned is retained by the states) and that even if it were, it could not have been properly exercised by the people due to lack of proper representation. I have pointed out this logic fails to address that blacks (as well as ALL women for that matter) were disenfranchised throughout the entire country and this view would necessarily require the condemnation of everything the US did (including creating itself) before allowing for full representation of the people. Since Con's arguments have failed to prove, or even suggest the illegality of southern secession & since he has offered historically untenable rebuttals to my main own assertions; we have only to conclude that Confederate secession was completely sanctioned by The United States Constitution. Having made this observation we will further cement that conclusion with a brief review of the facts surrounding the opening of hostilities. Using the specific example of Fort Sumter I have demonstrated the desire of The Confederacy to peacefully resolve matters pertaining to its evacuation over four months of patient negotiations. In that time, they were undeniably mislead by ranking members of The Lincoln administration, a fact my opponent has choosen to remain silent on. I have also shown a policy on the Part of The United States (which Con agrees existed) to refuse acknowledgement of the Confederate government thus forcing a war on any terms other than total surrender of The Confederacy. I have shown how Fort Sumter was not a logistically or militarily defendable position w/out the consent of South Carolina and as such, it had nothing more than nominal value (which has been addressed) to the US government. I have shown how the very land itself was given under the strict requirement that it's use always be of benefit to the state of South Carolina, again, my opponent failed to address this point. To close this discussion I will reiterate that all three of my historical references agree the only real reason Lincoln attempted to forcibly resupply that base was to maneuver Davis into firing the first shot of the war. In closing I ask again, was this really a noble cause? Thanks for the debate Con!