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

Limited in character space, I would like to defend against my opponent’s most direct attacks before proceeding to finalize my argument. "The Union did not precede the States, the Union only has power because of the states." Chronologically? Yes. Legally and politically? No. An argument that States historically ”precede” the Union implies that States formed after the Union was—the other 37 states—are then distinctly inferior or derived, contrary to the explicit equality of states established in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 [1]. Historically 'preceding' the Union neither automatically grants unconditional rights to tear it apart nor does it prove its arbitrary nature in binding the states. The Union not only derives its power from the states, but indisputably the people as well. Certainly, as Lincoln famously said, "if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" [2] "Article IV Section 4... but nowhere does it say that this power originates in the Federal Government. Article VI Paragraph 2 states that... no religious test should be required for office, again no mention of this power originating from the states." [sic]My opponent does me injustice: Article IV, Sec. 4 reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." [3] The best interests of the nation as a whole require the residents of each state to cede away a portion of their political sovereignty to the nation: the ability to choose any form of state government that they desire. It implies that Lincoln was correct when he declared that the southern states had no right to secede from the Union. While the text of the Constitution is silent on the right of secession, Article IV is an example of an overall constitutional structure that denies state residents the power to exercise political sovereignty within their own borders in a way that threatens national unity as a whole [4]. Indeed, the federal government does not derive its powers from itself, but from the Constitution and the people--the clearly extant power, regardless of its origin, to maintain the union. "... it [premise of debate] was if the states had a right to secede not if they had a right to join a Confederation" [sic]. The second part of the resolution concerns the North's right to stop them from seceding. Kentucky and Missouri did not legally secede. "... Since the states seceded they were free to write a new Constitution"I have shown above that they did not legally secede. "He [Lincoln] states in 1848 'Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.'"Lincoln is not invoking a constitutional right to destroy the Union, but, again, the natural right of revolution, an inalienable right clearly expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln never denied this right. As he said in his First Inaugural of 1861. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." But the people's right to revolution is in tension with the president's constitutional "duty" to administer the present government, as it came into his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor [5]. "Jefferson's for one called Nullification the “rightful remedy” and even referred to the states as 'sovereign and independent'... (see rest above)" [sic]Nullification is not equivalent to secession but for the same reasons (above) is equally invalid. My opponent's Jefferson quote is taken out of context and does not accurately reflect Jefferson's sentiments. (See his references.) Dropped or not, Bill of Rights, regardless, hasn't been shown to guarantee legal right of secession. George Mason of VA: Art IV, Sec. 3 explicitly gives for process for admission of new states, but the Constitution never once mentions one for 'secession' [3]. "... we cannot just assume that means a National government superseding the states... I have already proved why that is incorrect, particularly "chronologically”. Besides if my opponent going to make that argument then he must admit that people precede Union." [sic]Addressed later. This defense also relies on his chronological argument; I have already addressed it. And the people most certainly do precede the Union--they are the basis of this country, after all. This only serves to promote my argument. "We must also consider cases of judicial activism..."Certainly the Court is subject to human fallacy, but moral and legal values change over time, as does the law to conform it. Not to advocate unfair historic rulings, but my opponent's examples also show that Supreme Court rulings must be enforced as law until later repealed in respect to its legal authority. Regardless of 'judicial activism' or context, the legal consequences of the cases still stand at the time, just as those for Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson did. My opponent again brushes off Texas v. White, this time as retroactive. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, but does not change it. The only Constitutional amendments between the War and the Texas decision was the 14th, irrelevant to our debate. As a court ruling and not as legislature, the opinion and decision can apply retroactively, as my opponent has implied in later overturns for Dred Scott and Plessy. As for overstepping its bounds: secession is undeniably a national issue, its effects reaching farther than individual states. The Court, already established in earlier rounds, has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all courts in federal matters, states' included. My opponent has completely side-stepped a huge issue. Advocating unilateral secession, my opponent hasn't proved that the Constitution, the basis of this country, in seeking to form "a more perfect Union," simultaneously reserves each and every state a categorical, unilateral right to secede, in effect subjecting the country's unity and integrity to the whims of faction and minority. This argument has stood the entire debate. I would also like to point out that my opponent has not definitively shown the states to be sovereign, the only extra-Constitutional legal possibility for secession. However, as Daniel Webster astutely pointed out, "To make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the Constitution declares that no State shall make war. To coin money is another exercise of sovereign power; but no State is at liberty to coin money. Again, the Constitution says that no sovereign State shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty" [6]. Any oversight or character limitations in this debate be forgotten, I strongly urge the audience to carefully consider all aspects of this debate: cogency of arguments, rigor of citation, rhetoric, and neatness of writing included, before duly advocating a PRO vote. And finally, I extend a warm thanks to my opponent for a thoroughly engaging and challenging debate, and that the best debater may win. -- References: 1. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... 2. http://avalon.law.yale.edu... 3. http://www.archives.gov... 4. http://law.marquette.edu... 5. http://www.claremont.org...# 6. http://www.senate.gov...;