Pick your own debate... Regarding history!

Greetings, mongeese. To make my contention clear, I, in order to win this debate, merely have to demonstrate that the North's Moral High Ground was higher, or roughly equivalent to, that of the South. I think it fitting to begin my argument with a quotation of Lincoln's, "Those who deny Freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." ~ http://www.archive.org... I also think it necessary to rebut my opponent's arguments before pressing forth upon my own. Negating Resolution 1 and 2. It is easy to see that, with good reason, a State can secede from 'oppressive Government'. The Tenth commandment and the Clauses mentioned in the ratifications also granted the right to secede from 'oppressive Government'. The problem here is, where was that oppressive Government? I recall that the Republican Election was an honourable and uncorrupted affair, was it not? Lincoln was fairly elected with a platform (an anti-slavery platform) that could clearly be seen by all free/male voters. And, my opponent's weak argument regarding High Tariffs is nonsense. The Republican Platform, and the tensions leading to the war, had very much to do with slavery. Every plantation owner in the South was outraged at the thought that the Government wished to control the expansion of slavery. Legislation was to be placed that announced that any other new State had to be a Free soil. In Lincoln's 1858 House Divided Speech, he stated "...arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction." The Missouri Compromise had already ensured the prevention of spreading in the North, until it was repealed in 1854 and replaced by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which was a high tension controversy in itself. The 'Bleeding Kansas' affair was entirely about slavery. As was most of the tension leading in the thirty or more years to the Civil War. Another example that denotes that the Slavery issue was on the foremost of minds in both the Representatives and Senate is the caning of Charles Sumner by fellow Senator Preston Brooks. This occurred after Sumner delivered a heated anti-slavery speech. ~ http://us-civil-war.suite101.com... If, as my opponent claims, the secession was not largely about slavery, why did South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all withdraw even before Lincoln was formally announced to office? This is especially curious after Buchanan made efforts to pacify the South by reminding them that the Dred Scott Decision was evidence that there was no reason for secession. He called for a last meeting to keep the Union together. The Southern renegades denied any reason. Do you recall Vice President Stephens of the Confederacy? Why does his Cornerstone speech declare, "...rest[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth". ~ http://en.wikipedia.org... To negate my opponent on his New England's threat of secession, New England did not secede, did it? The South did, and it wasn't the United States Union that first brought the conflict to arms. If I recall correctly (which I do), it was Jefferson who ordered that all bordering Union forts be conquered quickly and decisively. The Confederacy fired upon Sumter and the Star of the West, its supply ship. The Union had no choice but to bear arms in order to quell this aggression. Oh yes, I agree that the Union's foremost goal, as outlined by the Crittended-Johnson Resolution, was to preserve the United States as a whole and to subjugate the unruly rebels. But to claim, after all I have presented, that slavery was not also weighing on the minds of the Southern Confederacy, of the Abolitionists and of the Northern Congress, one would be making a grave error and misconception of history. Negating Contention 3. I agree that the South was, for the most part, gentlemanly in conduct. I guess because they weren't Industrialized, growing extensively, and that all respectable plantation owners practiced some form of Christianity and knew morals and respectable status (emphasis on this. The entire life of the South was that of maintaining respectable status). However, who is to say that the Union didn't conduct themselves in an equally gentlemanly manner? I could contest, on the other hand, that their treatment of the black soldiers was not gentlemanly... As it was as cruel (even moreso) as any action that the Union enacted. "Even if Lincoln was not ready to admit it, blacks knew that this was a war against slavery." ~ http://www.pbs.org... From the ultimate result of this war - the re-uniting of brothers and the freedom of all slaves, one can see which two issues were truly foremost. "In 1863 the Confederate Congress threatened to punish severely officers of black troops and to enslave black soldiers. As a result, President Lincoln issued General Order 233, threatening reprisal on Confederate prisoners of war (POWs) for any mistreatment of black troops. Although the threat generally restrained the Confederates, black captives were typically treated more harshly than white captives. In perhaps the most heinous known example of abuse, Confederate soldiers shot to death black Union soldiers captured at the Fort Pillow, TN, engagement of 1864. Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest witnessed the massacre and did nothing to stop it." ~ http://www.archives.gov... One of the example could be remembered of the Siege on Fort Wagner. The Confederates did not treat Shaw (a gentleman) with any respect once he was dead. Instead, they stripped him and his fellow white officers of their uniform, as well as the black soldiers of the 54th, and buried them all in a communal pit. How about the Southern Concentration Camps? They stored Union soldiers in these, many of whom died of disease an malnutrition. Thus, I will make here a case that the Union's conduct was equally as gentlemanly as the Confederate's. Consider the surrender at Appotomax. Chamberlain wrote here that the surrender was made gravely, following all honourable conduct and not bragging of Union triumph. Rather, they acted like brothers and neighbors, neither leering triumph or gloating. http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm running out of space, but let me point out one last act of charity and graciousness that one would never have seen in the Confederacy: Lincoln's second inaugural address closed with these words: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." ~ Source 8 Stay classy and thanks again. : ) Sources: 1: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://wiki.answers.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.ihr.org... 5. http://americancivilwar.com... 6. http://www.archives.gov... 7. http://www.pbs.org... 8. http://www.america.gov...