Secession & The American Civil War

Thank you con. I will gladly number and address each of your arguments while also kindly pointing out those of mine that were not covered in your reply. If you feel I have missed any of your points please feel free to point them out and I will gladly address them in the next round. I only ask that you give my arguments the same courtesy. In some cases I will summarize your points and in others I will directly quote you. Let me know if my summaries are not agreeable... 1) The American Revolution was a more justified war as it tried to peacefully resolve its differences and upon the breaking of peace, justified its parting with a list of candid causes of the split. Since the extent to which peace was attempted is a subjective idea, I will leave it to the reader to decide if southern efforts were honestly and honorably attempted. Starting with the Three Fifths Compromise that helped enable the birth of our union, a number of compromises were established with the idea of "peace" being the focal point of each. The Missouri Compromise 1820 The 2nd Missouri Compromise 1821 The Compromise Tariff of 1833 The Compromise of 1850 The Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854 The Crittenden Compromise 1860 (unsuccessful) After all of these combined attempts, the conditions set fourth in the Preamble of the Constitution were still unattainable in the South. Since we have yet to hear from my opponent on how the failure to meet those conditions is anything less than paramount, I am content to rest this case pending a rebuttal. Which leads to the next argument; The South lacked compelling reasons for their separation. The trouble with this argument is the assumption that revolution and secession are identical terms. Our founding fathers were under no assumption whatsoever that their actions were legal. They believed (righteously) that while their actions were illegal under terms of British law, they were still required by the more important natural right of man to revolt. As such they submitted "facts to a candid world" to show why a peace loving, law abiding people, would revolt against the established authority. Secession, a right to be exercised as one sees fit, requires no such declaration. It doesn't even require a legitimate reason (of which there were many) provided the majority of a sovereign state feels it should be used. 2) secession/revolution is a right only to be enacted by the people and not the government. I agree with this statement unless you are somehow insinuating that a duly elected representation of the people can't facilitate this process. I have shown how, in every case of southern secession, each sovereign state acquiesced only AFTER an ordinance of secession was passed (again, in some cases unanimously) by the majority of its people. This is an argument you have yet to address, and as such, this point only seems to support The South's secession during The Civil War. 3) The South used the threat of secession as blackmail For blackmail to be a crime people have to be threatened with the loss of something that is legally theirs. The sovereignty of the southern people is not something the north ever owned or could ever lay legal claim to, thus they can't be blackmailed with the OPEN avocation that the south may decide to exercise a right it has. 4) All laws were passed by legal representatives of the several states and the South was simply the less powerful majority on the issue. Regrettably a law being passed by a duly represented act of congress does not mean it is legal in accordance with our constitution. One of the reasons our system of government and its checks and balances exists is to prevent a simple majority from subjugating the rights of a lawful minority. That's what a republic is. In this specific example, while the majority of the country felt limiting the practice of slavery in the territories was legal and right, the Supreme Court (Scott Vs Sanford) clearly stated that this practice was unconstitutional. 5) "they [The South] seceded because they disliked the fact that slavery was dying and more and more people were saying that representative government should include all people of all colors. "........"There was no true issue with tyrannical government (except the slave system in the South), meaning the South failed to clear the necessary burden of 'utter tyranny' to justify secession" I have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that under established law at that time, slavery was perfectly legal and its banning from the territories held by the United States was totally illegal. Slavery being protected by the law was an issue for The North, the attempted abrogation of that law was what lead to the resulting separation. And for clarity's sake, history will show that scarcely any northerner supported, much less went to war over, the right of freed slaves to vote. Let us also not forget that four Confederate States did not even secede until AFTER Lincoln called forth an army to invade the already parted states. That makes your conclusion very difficult to prove. 6) "Perpetual" Union and the Aticles of the Confederation. The argument is pretty basic. The "Perpetual" Union that was The Articles of the Confederation LEGALLY ENDED. So much for perpetual! Let us also not forget that the word "perpetual" was specifically removed from the document which created our new union. 7) Texas vs White This case was after the Civil War and was not a ruling on secession itself. As such it has no bearings on the actions of the Confederacy during the Civil War and couldn't even be used as precedent in a case that did review secession specifically. Not to mention one of the judges (Chase) was a cabinet member of the Lincoln administration during the war; conflict of interest maybe? 8) "Finally, the South had no justification in attacking the North's military instillation at Fort Sumter. The North had no obligation to leave, because it was their land. By attacking the North first, the South did one of two things: A) If secession was legal, attacked a sovereign power, which is an act of war by any definition B) If secession was illegal, waged rebellion against government, which is treason. Unfortunately these conclusions ignore my own assertions regarding this very issue. This being the case I have only to restate and further clarify my claims. Pursuant to my numerous arguments above, I hold secession was completely legal and thus Fort Sumter could not possibly be considered Federal property. Geographically speaking, it is inconceivable to assume any party could hold Fort Sumter without the consent of the parties in control of Charleston. Without the support of the harbor it protects, the position is not only untenable, it is completely worthless to the US government. When the land was deeded to the United States by the authorities of South Carolina is was done so under a very specific stipulation. This was that its use would always be for the defense of the State of SC AND the US. This was a legal contract signed by both parties. How could that base be used for the defense of South Carolina when it is being manned by foreign and hostile forces with guns trained on Charleston Harbor? Again, I submit that emissaries were sent from The CSA to The USA to equitably settle matters of finance between the two nations. Again, I clarify these emissaries were either outright refused, or specifically mislead in regards to the Sumter situation. And finally I remind us that even after all of those facts, The South waited until an imminent threat to one of their most important harbors was apparent and unavoidable, and only then did they give battle. With 253 characters left to go, I send it back to you con!