The Civil War South did not have the legal right to secede from the Union.

-- I would like to begin by first addressing my opponent's arguments by building my own. My opponent argues that the Constitution does not prohibit secession, and by the 10th Amendment, thus allows secession. However, he does not proceed to elaborate specifically how the 10th guarantees a legal right to secession. The Tenth Amendment, as it reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [1] However, the purpose of the Constitution pursues a "perpetual, more perfect Union," no mere alliance or voluntary pact among sovereign states. As Owens writes, "The States "retained all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation. " " [2] The concept of unilateral secession contradicts the very concept of Federalism and the balance of powers inherent to the Founders' intentions and the nature of this country. Indeed, the Constitution never explicitly reserves the right of secession, as it logically shouldn't. As James Madison said, "It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism. " [3] Sanctifying the right for individual, unilateral secession of states either in letter or in spirit defeats the very purpose of the Constitution and reduces the bonds holding the nation together to "ropes of sand. " Reserving the right of secession indefinitely also reduces the federal government and all other states in the union to pointlessness as their wishes can be arbitrarily defied at a whim with threats of secession. Abraham Lincoln asserts, "No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. They can only do so against law, and by revolution. " Lincoln's belief was that the very core of a civilized democracy was the principle of majority rule. He and other opponents of secession reasoned that it was unacceptable because no democracy could function if sections of the country were to simply leave the Union at will. Such behavior would lead ultimately to anarchy. [8] In McCulloch v Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall refuted the argument that states retain ultimate sovereignty because they ratified the constitution. Marshall contended that it was the people who ratified the Constitution and thus the people are sovereign, not the states. [4] Similarly, in Texas v White, the Court held that "the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, wereabsolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. " [5] Time and time again, it has been proven that the states do not have a legal right to secession. The Constitution and historic court cases provide substantial grounds to support this. My opponent points to the Constitution, but the Tenth Amendment fails to hold; there are no positive, legal allowances for secession anywhere to speak of. My opponent also claims that Lincoln's stated goal was to "keep the Union together," which was actually keeping with the spirit of the Constitution and the preservation of the Union, together in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Lincoln did not violate state's rights as my opponent asserts—secession, as shown above, is not a feasible states' right—nor was Lincoln in the wrong in declaring war—Confederate forces demanded Fort Sumter to surrender before provocatively attacking on April 11th, 1861, an overt act of war. [6] The supremacy clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2) stated: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. " Furthermore, the guarantee clause (Article IV, Section 4) stated: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. " Lincoln referred to that clause to justify the Northern invasion of the South in an attempt to prevent secession. "[I]f a State may lawfully go out of the Union, having done so, it may also discard the republican form of government; so that to prevent its going out, is an indispensable means, to the end, of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it, are also lawful, and obligatory," he said. [8] Clearly, the federal government was well within its means in preserving the union at any and all costs. Finally, my opponent claims that the mentality of secession resides at "the core of the American identity. " Unfortunately, the American Revolutionary War does not represent a precedent for state secession. The colonies essentially claimed a Lockean right of revolution against an 'oppressive' government in which they had no direct representation. Their moral justification in forcibly separating from Great Britain certainly does not equivocate to legal right to unilateral secession on the part of equal and fairly represented states of the US. The evidence is irrefutable, the arguments irresistible. Thus, I strongly urge a PRO vote. -- References: 1. . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... 2. . http://www.claremont.org... 3. . http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu... 4. Chemerinsky, Erwin (2006). Constitutional Law Principles and Policies (3rd ed. ). New York: Aspen Publishers. 5. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... 6. . http://www.civilwar.org... 7. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. . http://www.philwrites.com...