In Defense of the Confederate States of America (CSA)

=My case=I. The reason for secession was unjust Pro doesn't even argue this point. Thus you can conclude that the reason for secession was not states rights as Pro dubiously claimed, but rather slavery. Vote Con unless you think leaving the country over slavery is a position worth defending. 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. Secondly this claim is so bogus that I can't be certain that Pro isn't joking. His sources talk about a Union peace offering that the South *rejected* who's terms included maintaining the Emancipation Proclamation. One of the three terms the Union laid out for peace was "no receding, by the Executive of the United States on the Slavery question"[1] and the offer was rejected by the South. Earlier in the round Pro cited some articles that *asserted* that the South was "moving toward" ending slavery but did not explain how. II. ConstitutionalityPros 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. 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. Thus you can vote Con based on both of my arguments standing. =Pro case=I. The confederacyOnly 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. II. The Union 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. This is irrelevant anyway. Even if the South was the better place than the North, that doesn't mean the South had the moral high ground in the civil war.Pro doesn't really dispute my argument that not walking in the shoes of slave owners doesn't mean we don't have the proper information to condemn their actions. I'm not even sure what Pro is arguing with his quotes. It should come as no surprise that many Northerners felt contempt for the South, and Southerners responded in kind. Some Northerners disliking the South did not give the South the right to rebel. The resolution is negated. 1. http://quod.lib.umich.edu...