The South was justified in leaving the Union prior to the Civil War.

DEBATE DIRECTION1. My opponent's resolution was that southern secession was justified. Justification, for simplicity's sake, comes in 2 forms: moral justification, and legal justification. .2. My opponent, In round 3, has conceded that the south did indeed secede to keep slavery, and slavery is immoral, ergo he concedes that southern secession was not morally justified. It is not my intention to put words in his mouth, but by agreeing to the 2 mentioned points, there leaves nothing more to debate. If something is immoral, then the action of doing it is immoral as well. His only defense on this point was that the north was not morally justified either, but as you can see, that is not the subject of this debate, so that point has no warrant. 3. Therefore, the remainder of the debate will consist of proving whether or not the south was legally justified. I will only refute my opponents points that pertain to secession legality because that is all that is required, from here and on for me to prove that the south was not justified, and hence all that is needed for me to win. REFUTATIONSMY RESOLUTION: Secession was and has always been illegal through retroactive court rule and interpretation of the Constitution. "Con says that secession was illegal because of Article 1, Section 10. That's very interesting, however it is false because when the South left the Union. .. they were no longer states! Remember, the legality of seccession was, at this point, unclear and as such the legality of it could not be assessed. Article one aplies to only states, the CSA was a different country. "1. The CSA did not exist as a recognized and legal entity. The states did not have the power or legal right to form the CSA. Why:a. RETROACTIVE SupCT. case Texas v. White. Chief Justice Salmon Chase (1869)[1]:"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. 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? "1. It was the RETROACTIVE rule of this court that secession is an act that contradicts the intent of the Constitution. Their reasoning stemed from the quoted introductory phrase of the Constitution "to form a more perfect Union". They proved that it was never legal to secede.2. While my opponent may disagree with this ruling, it still stands, as the Supreme Court is the highest court and the judicial power affirming what is legal in the United States, and what is not. Because of the, again RETROACTIVE, ruling of Texas v. White, it is the irrefutable, unnegatable, and irrepressable truth that by law, it was indeed illegal to secede. 3. Something cannot be illegal, yet legally justified. HENCE, the south was not legally justified in seceding either. 4. The remainder of PRO's points are either without warrant, or irrelevant to the topic of secession legality, so they need not be negated. SUMMARYMORALITY JUSTIFICATION1. PRO and I agree that slavery is immoral.2. PRO and I agree that the South seceded to keep slavery. 3. Therefore, PRO and I agree that the South seceded to do something immoral.4. An action cannot be immoral, but morally justified. It is a contradiction. 5. THEREFORE, PRO and I agree that secession was not morally justified. LEGAL JUSTIFICATION1. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and decides what is and is not legal. Unless the case involves amending the Constitution and referring to that new addition, the rule is RETROACTIVE (key word here). 2. Since the decision of Texas v. White was retroactive, it means that secession was NEVER legal.3. Something cannot be illegal, yet legally justified. It is a contradiction. 4. Secession was and always will be illegal. CONCLUSIONSince PRO and I transitively agree that secession was not morally justified, and I proved in an irrefutable and final way (by referring to the ultimate source of proof) that secession is not legally justified, I urge that the South was not justified in seceding. Vote CON. * On a side noteAbout the "negro" comment. I will ask you once more to refrain from using that word. It shows very poor conduct. It is irrelevant whether that is a word you grew up hearing, I ask you to conform to the rules of common society and this website, not my own rules. It is incredibly vulgar to use a racial epithet of such negative history in a civil debate. If you continue, you may be penalized by the voters. [1] Texas v. White, 74 U. S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection