In Defense of the Confederate States of America (CSA)

"Pro argues that the South "planned" to abolish slavery. First, even if this is true it still doesn't make the CSA morally defensible. Even if the South planned to abolish slavery at some later date, fighting to preserve it in the short term is still a moral abomination." The war was still over State Rights, because the Southern states considered the ability to own slaves a right. And since the South would've eventually freed their slaves anyway, was the war worth it? Thett said that my "sources were bogus." Only one of the three sources talking about the South's move to end slavery could be considered historical revisionism. The other two are neutral sources which spoke the truth. ANYHOW... "Pros response here is a misapplication of the legal system. That secession was ruled unconstitutional after the war has no bearing on the legitimacy of the ruling. The entire basis of the case was about the validity of government actions under the CSA banner and the court ruled that Texas had, throughout the entire civil war, remained legally a state and thus all actions the confederate governments partook in were null. The ruling was based on the idea that the states had agreed to a perpetual union when they entered the country. The ruling was that states *never* had the right to secede." Imagine a country where it's not against the law to murder people. So, thousands of people are murdered in this country every day. Finally, this country's government passes a law making murder illegal. NOW, all future murders can be prosecuted, but this government has no right to jail or execute people for activities which were not illegal at the time that they were committed. In this same way, secession was not illegal in 1861. Claiming that somehow it was illegal at the time because such a law was passed later is just plain stupid (please note that this is not a personal remark aimed towards Con in any way). If in this fictional country rules that all murders committed before this law would also be prosecuted, well, the country has no right to do this. In the 1920s. did the US Government have the right to jail people who drank whiskey or beer before Prohibition came into effect? I think not. "This renders Pro's rebuttal about the South firing the first shots moot. The South certainly did not have "every right" to attack Fort Sumter as the fort was federal property. Remember, Texas v. White tells us that the Souths territory was always a part of the nation If there is some right to secession, Pro has not proven so. " As I've proven the South did have a right, regardless of the Supreme Court's later decision. ALSO, may I remind Con that there is no official process for establishing a nation? Even in today's heavily-regulated world with the UN, there is no formal process required for a new nation to be legitimate. The group with the guns rules the country, and it's as simple as that. And the Confederate was an organized entity, with an army, state governments, and a central government. So what makes Con think there was such a process back in the 19th century? "Only one round in, and none of Pro's subpoints here still stand. We now know that the South did secede to defend the institution of slavery from Lincoln who the perceived as a radical, most people not owning slaves was irrelevant, and the souths economy being based on slavery does not justify the existence of slavery. Pro thankfully doesn't disagree that slavery was a grevious evil, but only responds that the North didn't have the right to invade because it was not their nation. First, even if this is true the South fired the first shots when the situtaion was still very confused. Secondly, this argument is false as Texas v. White shows. Thirdly, this argument lacks moral basis, a country has every right to intervene in another to stop human rights abuses. With the defeat of the South and the passage of the 13th amendment, the uniquely evil institution of American slavery was wiped from the face of the Earth. Pro's only response is that abolishing slavery "overnight utterly ruined the south". There were many flaws with reconstruction but the abolition of slavery was not among them. Moreover if abolishing slavery "ruined" the South, this calls into question Pro's argument about the South trying to abolish slavery on its own." I do not deny that slavery was evil. HOWEVER, did they really have to end it through war? Why not simply abolish slavery and pay the slave owners for every one of their slaves freed? "Pro continues to deride capitalism without realizing that the fundamental difference between voluntary, paid labor and slave labor is the voluntary part. The North's industrial system unquestionably had the moral high ground because it revolved around mutually beneficial, voluntary and contractual exchanges as opposed to hereditary race based servitude and exploitation. If the North was truly worse than the South, thousands of slaves wouldn't have risked everything to try and escape to the North. Pro's comparison would probably be extremely offensive to anyone who's ever experienced slavery, and fails to recognize the sheer indignity that comes with being the "property" of another." I am a Conservative, which means I believe in Capitalism. HOWEVER, I do not believe in utterly unregulated capitalism where workers sit in sweatshops for 16 hours a day. Con says it's better off than slavery. After all, with Slavery you get whipped and you're somebody else's property. However, you are (unofficially, of course) the property of your employer when you work in a sweatshop. If you quit, you starve in the streets. There were few labor unions back then, and no minimum wage in the US. That's all I'm going to say on this debate. I enjoyed this, and I hope to debate other people in the future. P.S. The Emancipation Proclamation and even the Civil War did not end slavery in the United States. http://abcnews.go.com...