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

Nearly every statement in pro's argument was riddled with fallacy and subjective conclusions. I will address each one by quote. This will be my negation of pro's arguments. Afterwards, I will provide my own case as to why secession was not justified legally OR morally. Negation1) "The South was justified in leaving the Union because, at the time, the action of seccession was legal"1N) AT THE TIME, secession was actually unconstitutional and hence illegal. Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution (1): " No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" 2) " The North was slowly chipping away at the institution of slavery which was, at the time, extremely important to the economy of the South"2N) FALSE. the South was trying to EXTEND slavery to the new territories, but the North would not allow it. In the events leading up to secession, slavery in the states that ALREADY had slavery was unchallenged. The North, while many individuals wanted slavery gone all together, was still not fighting for the eradication of slavery, rather, it was fighting against the SPREAD of slavery to the territories gained from the Mexican-American War. The Compromise of 1850 and the Wilmot proviso were among the proposed legislative plans to arbitrate the controversey of spreading slavery. Therefore, the argument that the North was clipping away at slavery is historially and completely factually incorrect.3) "The South's leaving of the Union was not only an act of self preservation, but a (a the time) legal act of peace"3N) FALSE. There was nothing peaceful about the southern secession. They forcefully attempted to rob a fort from the federal government of the United States. That led to a battle we recognize as the battle of Fort Sumter, the spark of the civil war. In a peaceful secession the South would not have attempted to claim a fort that belonged to America. That fort was on southern land, but rightfully so, because that southern land is U.S land first and foremost. Secession did not imply that federal institutions situated on that land became the property of the Confederation. That is theft. 4) "While slavery is surely unjust, do not think for even a moment that the North was for equal rights/freedom or anything like that. The North's primary goal in abolishing slavery was to economically weaken the South."4N) Here is the first example of a subjective conclusion from pro. He has made an assumption that is not only historically unsupported but very prone to challenge and defeat. Hence I will challenge and defeat it. The North was truely against slavery because it was not a part of their society. This fact allowed them to see slavery through an eye of ethicality. Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe is one of the many northern attempts to attack slavery from a moral perspective. Had the North only cared about destroying southern economy, (an argument that makes no sense since the South, after all, is still a part of America), then they would have only gone about doing so on a legislative and Congressional basis. They even helped free slaves to Liberia and the Northern states. It is an imperceptive conclusion to assert that the north genuinely did not care about the morality of this subject, when their actions and history suggest otherwise.Furthermore, it is ubsurd and frankly quite asinine to believe that the north was only interested in destroying Southern economy. That would be a suicide mission as the distruction of southern economy would also mean the harming of American economy, and transitively the harming of Northern economy. Pro forgets that the U.S is still ONE country even though there is sectionalism. 5) ""Honest" Abe himself even campiagned that he had no interest in abolishing slavery, he only did so as a way to punish the South for it's seccession." 5N) Lincoln did infact use the emancipation proclamation to punish the south, but to declare that he had no interest in abolishing slavery is PARTLY false. He did not want to abolish slavery, yes, but only because of the fragility and political implications of such an action. By theory and belief, Lincoln was strongly opposed to slavery. He was a member of the Republican party which did not like slavery. If slavery was not so firmly attached to southern life, Lincoln would have attacked it politically. Basically, pro is trying to make it seem as if the north and the president didn't really genuinely care about the morality of slavery, and that, as I have proven, is very false. 6) "At the very least, the South was honest about how they felt about the Negro's. The North, sadly, was not."6N) As I have proven in the last 2 negations, this statement is false. Furthermore, for the progression of this debate I will have to request that my opponent refrain from using the offensive and provocative gutter language of the South at the time unless used in the context of a quote FROM a southerner of that time. The use of the word "Negro" is not politically correct, appropriate, or of good taste and conduct even in a debate pertaining to slavery. Thank you. ProofWhy did the south secede? Because they feared the republicans would abolish slavery, so states seceded the minute a republican president (Abraham Lincoln) was elected. This was unjustified on a legal and moral basis. 1) Secession is illegalArticle 4, Section 3 of the United States Constitution (2):"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States" It is the implication and subtext of this excerpt that the territory occupied by the United States belongs to the country as a whole ("the country as a whole" being represented by the federal government), and no particular state individually. The limited jurisdiction of the states over the political map does not imply ownership of the land thereof. 1. THEREFORE, the land of the states by geography are subject to regulation and authority by the federal government through CONSTITUTIONAL DECREE. 2. Secession would lift this authority3. Lifting of said authority is illegal4. Secession is Illegal. 5. And I will refer again to the constitution saying that no state can join another Confederation.2) The south's reasoning for seceding was not moral.1. They wanted to keep slavery, one of the most immoral practices in human history. They seceded to do evil. This is not proper reasoning for leaving the Union. 2. The very fact that the south seceded to keep slavery is sufficient proof that their reasoning is not morally justified. In conclusion, the south indeed was NOT JUSTIFIED in seceding.