Secession is justified (morally)

I am sorry that I cannot respect your wish of avoiding an in-depth discussion of morality. It is a central issue within the debate as we are discussion moral justifications.My opponent did not state whether he wanted me to start rebuttals in round 2, or round 3. Therefore, I will present my case this round and procede to start rebuttals in round 3 in order to allow for an equal number of rebuttal speeches and to preserve fairness. My opponent obviously is allowed to rebut my round 3 arguments with new refutation in round 4 as that will be his first opportunity to do so. Allow all new arguments he brings up in round 4 to stand, insofar as they are responses to my rebuttal.CaseFrameworkMorality demands obligations. Kant explains (1),We not only have an unavoidable interest in our own happiness and welfare, we also have an obligatory interest in what morality requires of us. Because these two interests can and do conflict, we often find ourselves reluctant to do what is right, and that is why morality appears to us, not as what is right, but also as white is our duty. In adopting the moral incentive as our motive for acting, therefore, we must commit ourselves to the maxim always to try with all our might to "act in conformity with dutyfrom duty."The significance of Kant's argument is that we have an obligation of upholding morality. Therefore, whenever a violation of morality exists, there also exists a reciprocal obligation to remedy this violation.For morality to exist, we must respect our nature as moral beings, and thus our moral autonomy, Christine M. Korsgaard elaborates (2),[W]e must value our moral nature as what I call a form of practical identity, a description under which we value ourselves and find our lives worth living. I claimed that our moral identity, which I took to be equivalent to our human identity, is the ultimate source of reasons, because the moral law is the ultimate source of justification - a consideration must be capable of being embodied in a universalizable maxim if it is to count as a reason at all. So if we are to have any reasons, or to see anything as being valuable, we must value and identify with our nature as moral beings.If we disregard autonomy, then we disregard morality altogether. When we cross-apply Kant's argument we see that we have a moral obligaton to respect autonomy. To be logically consistent we must assume that anything which is manifested in a moral obligation is also morally justified.Contention 1: The moral obligation to respect autonomy justifies secessionG. A. Cohen argues (3),[E]ach person is the morally rightful owner of his own person and powers, and, consequently, that each is free (morally speaking) to use those powers as he wishes, provided that he does not deploy them aggressively against others.Denying secession denies individual states the autonomy to leave the union, and thus violates morality. Therefore we have a moral obligation to allow for secession, and secession is thus morally justified.In short:1. Morality requires us to respect autonomy.2. Peaceful secession allows for state autonomy.Thus, peaceful secession is morally justified.Therefore I urge a Pro ballot.Sources1. Kant, Immanuel. The Metaphysics of Morals. 1785.2. Valuing Our Humanty. Korgaard, Christine M.3. Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. G. A. Cohen. Cambridge UP 1995