In Defense of the Confederate States of America (CSA)

I interpret the resolution as an analysis of the morality of the Confederacy and the justice of their cause. C1: The reason for secession was unjust. Pro contends that the CSA was based more upon states rights than it was slavery. If this was true, the secession wouldn't have been a reaction to their fear that Lincoln would end slavery. Washington Post explains[1]: "On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War."Indeed, it is for this reason that slavery was enshrined in the Confederate constitution. In Article 1, Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution[2] it is declared "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Pro argues that it was really about states rights but this makes no sense at all. The south didn't secede just to prove it could, there had to be some sparking issue and that issue was slavery. To defend the CSA is to defend a nation who's sole purpose of existence was the preservation of slavery. Any student of the antebellum United States knows well that much of the tension that existed between the North and South since the beginning of the nation was due to slavery, from the status of slavery in the territories and the new states to bleeding Kansas. C2: Secession was unconstitutional When states agreed to accept the Constitution, they also agreed to a permenant union and forfeited their right to leave. The Supreme Court wrote in Texas vs. White[3]: "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?" The South had no right to secede, fired the first shots of the war, and as such was unquestionably in the wrong. =Pro case= I. ConfederacyA. States rightsDon't allow my opponent to gain any advocacy from his sources if he isn't explaining what they mean in the round. Honestly, this entire argument is just ridiculous because the south didnt secede just to prove they could they seceded due to slavery. There is simply no substance behind this argument.B. Not many owned slavesThis is irrelevant--the entire economy of the south was based upon slave labor. Moreover the economic elite owned slaves even if the commoners didn't, and they were the ones who founded, led, and ultimately dissolved the new nation. Even if 90% of Confederate citizens were staunch abolitionists, if the government was controlled by the forces of evil than there is no reason tod efend the confederacy.C. Slavery was neededThis is an easily turnable argument. The whole wretched system was based on slavery and the North was justified in intervening to end such a pervasive evil. II. The UnionPro attacks capitalism and the private, contractual, and voluntary relationships workers in the North entered with their companies. While the North may have had it's own set of social problems, it's entire economy was based on contractual labor as opposed to enslavement and ownership of human beings. To claim that the North was somehow morally inferior to the South simply because it was going through the same ultra-capitalist phase that nearly all nations go through in the process of industrialization is absurd. III. Psychology Pro's argument that we don't know what our position would be in the past is irrelevant--just because I haven't walked in a slave owners shoes doesn't mean that I don't have the proper perspective to tell that their actions were morally wrong. To condemn the Confederacy is not to condemn every member of it or even every slave owner as an objectively terrible person but, rather, a reflection of their own society which we now know to be flawed. It doesn't matter if the North was arrogant (even if it was Pro hasn't sourced this) and it doesn't matter if the North helped to polarize the South. At the end of the day, the South was the one who had to more immoral system, seceded illegally, and fired the first shot.History is a lot more complex than the orthodox "The civil war was a war fought by evil racist slave owners against freedom loving champions led by Honest Abe" intrepretation. However that doesn't mean that the South was in the right. The resolution is negated. Sources: 1. http://www.washingtonpost.com...2. http://avalon.law.yale.edu...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...