Secession & The American Civil War

To begin my closing statement, I will first go over my opponent's primary points and their main flaws; I will then enter into my own arguments, explaining why the South had no right to secede from the Union and their subsequent, unwarranted attack on the Union was their own fault, not the fault of the Union.My opponent has based his argument in favor of the South and its subsequent attacks on several main points. First, my opponent asserts that the South was failed in four key 'promises' and thus could secede. He argues that Congress banning slave transportation into free states or territories was illegal, that mob rule in Kansas and Missouri territories violated the peace, that slave insurrections had been attempted and, in some cases, aided by Northern abolitionists, and that the basis of southern economic prosperity was being threatened, without regard for reparation payments. He then argues that the Constitution does not mention secession (a fact I find agreeable), but that they intended it to be protected in the 9th and 10th amendments. Finally, he argues that the South was justified in attacking a Union fort, Fort Sumter, comparing it to France attacking a US base in France.I have explained several key flaws with these arguments. First off, states and territories were under no obligation to support slavery. Under the 10th amendment, states have the right to decide what types of property should be legal in their state. Although territories have no such right, Congress did and had created a system where some territories would support slavery, and others wouldn't. To say any of them were obligated Constitutionally to support it does not make sense. Similarly, the second and third arguments have little, if anything, to do with government. My opponent admits such mobs came from both sides. How can this be the fault of the North if both sides have caused it? Northern abolitionists helping start slave rebellions is also not a government issue. The final one - that slave labor was the backbone of the South and that no reparations were offered - has been thoroughly rebutted. I have noted that the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves and that reparations were considered - even during the war! Lincoln himself wanted to pay the loyal slaveholders in the border states, and it can be assumed other members of his 'moderate Republican' group likely did the same prior to it. His position on Fort Sumter is also fatally flawed - he assumes the Confederacy was entitled to steal every Union instillation in the region, despite the fact that the Union paid for and owned them. He justifies the attack on it by absurdly comparing it to France attacking a US fort in France (which would be entirely different because France has never been part of the US, and probably still illegal anyway), and basically said "the North didn't need it and had no use for it, so the South had every right to take it". This is a poor argument - a poor man could not go into the house of a rich man and steal his stuff, even though the rich man could probably do without it. Why? Because it is not his stuff. Similarly, the North refused to cede control of it; the South expressed very ill will and revealed their true intentions by attacking it, even though the North had done nothing to warrant it.Now, with that out of the way, I will explain my argument and how it is far better:As I have explained earlier in this article, I believe 100% the right to secede exists. I reject the idea this idea exists in the government - it is a right of the people. At the same time, this right has limitations. In the Declaration of Independence - the fundamental American document on secession - Thomas Jefferson explained that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security". This view expresses a great deal of wisdom on the topic of secession - Jefferson noted secession is indeed a right, but also explained that this right is only to be applied when utter tyranny has been onset or is about to be onset. In fact, if you look at the Declaration itself, the sheer number of injustices listed far exceed the ones Pro listed in favor of Southern secession. In fact, every single one of them listed in the Declaration of Independence is to a degree far higher than any of Pro's arguments. Thus, it is undeniable that tyranny had not been onset in the South. Pursuant to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence - the document which reveals the basic thought process our Founding Fathers had on the topic - Southern secession was unwarranted and illegal, because there was no justification for it.I also noted earlier precedent on the matter - early documents such as the Articles of Confederation outright banned it, while the federal government actually stepped in to stop rebellions liked the Whiskey Rebellion. Unlike in Britain, where no representation was awarded to the states, the Southern states had fair representation in Congress, meaning that the South had votes on key issues. While such representation was lacking, because it did not include women and blacks, the fact of the matter is the South was in an increasingly shrinking minority on the topic of slavery - recognizing this, the South threatened to secede if Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election. In other words, they attempted to blackmail the North into submitting to their desires. When Lincoln won (due in part to the sheer stupidity of the Democratic Party and the presence of a major third party), they began to secede, with states like South Carolina noting in their secession documents that slavery - and the increasing disdain for it in the North - was the fundamental reason for secession.In the creation of the Confederate Constitution, the South basically copied most of the US Constitution - reiteration the fact the war was caused not by a lack of Constitutional protection, but due to the North becoming increasingly hostile to the practice. When the South attacked Fort Sumter - an act of war by any definition of the word - the North rightly responded in kind. To sum up: the South was not under tyranny, nor about to be under tyranny, and thus had no right to secede. Their actions prior to and after the war demonstrate the ill will the South carried towards the US, and their unwarranted attack on Fort Sumter was illegal. Thus, the South's illegal secession and illegal attack on Fort Sumter means the Civil War was justified.I would like to thank my opponent for an excellent debate. This was a lot of fun to work on, and a very challenging debate to boot - I hope the civility this debate had can serve as a model for future debates on this topic.