Secession & The American Civil War

1) I'm sorry for any confusion with that - by 'North' I meant the North, excluding border states (who, in all honesty, were basically forced to stay in the union). However, my main point stands - under the 10th amendment, the states were under no obligation to recognize slavery. Forcing them to allow it would be a violation of the 10th amendment.2) My 'evenly split' comment was basically agreeing with the following statement you made: Hangings, brutal beatings, war mongering and various others evil deeds were being regularly committed (by both sides) across Kansas and Missouri, disturbing the peace for all.You noted that 'both sides' were causing this; my response is that, if both sides caused it, it is not the fault of the North and thus cannot be a valid argument against the North.3) It would have caused some damage, yes, but most southerners didn't own slaves. There is no reason freed slaves couldn't be employed to work for pay. Additionally, there are many other alternatives that could have been viable - for example, many anti-slavery Republicans believed that slaveholders should be entitled to just compensation.4) I'm not saying such rebellions were legal, but when you enslave a large percentage of your population, it is very likely that some of them will fight back.5) According to Wikipedia, cited from the book Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President: "In an effort to keep border states in the Union, President Lincoln as early as 1861 designed gradual compensated emancipation programs paid for by government bonds. Lincoln desired Delaware,Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri to 'adopt a system of gradual emancipation which should work the extinction of slavery in twenty years.' On March 26, 1862 Lincoln met with Senator Charles Sumner and recommended that a special joint session of Congress be conveyed to discuss giving financial aid to any border states who initiated a gradual emancipation plan. In April 1862, the joint session of Congress met, however, the border states were not interested and did not make any response to Lincoln or any Congressional emancipation proposal.Lincoln advocated compensated emancipation during the 1865 River Queen steamer conference."If Lincoln, a chief advocate against slavery, promoted such ideas, it is not too hard to assume many other moderate Republicans would support it. Of course, this only applied to the slave states that stayed loyal to the union, and when Lincoln was killed and the radical Republicans took power it ultimately failed.6) I don't understand your logic here. Secession is not universally legal, and revolution is not universally illegal (the Constitutions of New Hampshire, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Texas protect it, for example). The North (excluding border states) had already long ended slavery. The issue here isn't legality, however, it is whether secession was warranted.7) The Declaration of Independence is absolutely law, in the sense it codified secession from Britain and the reasons for doing so. As such, it is effective for establishing precedence in the matter.8) There is no constitutionally protected right of secession. Secession belongs to the people, and is only warranted when utter tyranny is laid out.9) The North did not recognize those delegates because they did not recognize the Confederacy, as you note. Why would the government suddenly change their policy on that? The answer - they wouldn't.10) The difference between China parking a sub in the Chesapeake Bay and the US having a fort in Charleston is that China is not and never has been a part of the United States, and thus they cannot do that unless they agree to let China do that. South Carolina, on the other hand, was a US state, and had allowed the US to use that property for basically as long as they wanted. The North had done nothing to warrant that attack, because the buildings themselves were theirs and they also controlled the land.11) Not sure what your issue here is. I've never argued they are the same.12) I do not believe you have. I have established secession is indeed a right, but that can only be invoked when there is tyranny - which did not exist in the South, except with what the south itself was doing.13) It doesn't mean all actions prior to that were illegal. However, what it does mean is that government prior to it in the slave states was not truly representative.14) If forts in foreign countries have no real value, please explain why the US military currently has hundreds of military bases in foreign countries.15) That is a rather weak argument to me. In a lawless land, of course everything is going to be legal until you make it illegal. Does the existence of, say, murder laws cause you to naturally assume murder used to be legal? Does the existence of rape laws make you assume rape used to be legal? Of course not.Alright, back to you for you closing argument. I look forward to seeing the conclusion of this excellent debate.References:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...