American Civil war- The Upper South Left the Union Over State Sovereignty

The generally attributed cause of the secession of the Confederate States of America is the issue of slavery and its place in the Union. The issue of state sovereignty is often cited as an alternative cause of secession. Why this is the case is beyond the scope of this debate, however I will be attempting to demonstrate that rather than seceding over state sovereignty, it was indeed the issue of slavery that incited the states of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Confederate sympathizers in Kentucky and Missouri to attempt to leave the Union.State sovereignty was certainly in the conscious of the South in general in the decades leading up to the Civil War. However, the issues in question for the secession was the sovereignty necessary to preserve the institution of slavery. This fact can be demonstrated by illustrating points in time in which southern states valued the preservation of slavery over, and even to the detriment of, preserving state sovereignty.Example One: Resistance to the Fugitive Slave LawIn 1850, the aging politician Henry Clay passed a compromise that he hoped would resolve the issue of slavery within the Union. The most important tenet was a fugitive slave law which required federal officials to work with citizens in recapturing and reappropriating any escaped slaves who had fled to the North. This law was highly regarded by most Southerners, as it gave value to the institution of slavery. Shortly after the passage of the act, Southern Democrats (in all parts of the South, not just the Deep South) adopted the Georgia Platform, which essentially contained a thinly veiled threat of secession occurring should the fugitive slave law not be enacted with full force."it is the deliberate opinion of this Convention, that upon the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Bill by the proper authorities depends the preservation of our much loved Union." [1]Large amounts of Northerners would enact the process of Jury Nullification in an effort to enforce an abolitionist spirit, and many state legislatures in Northern states passed laws disabling the fugitive slave law as a form of defiance. This was a very clear example of state sovereignty being used as an agent against slavery. Therefore, if any of the states of the South had truly desired to increase state sovereignty more than they wanted to preserve slavery, there would have been no objections to these measures. However, what we instead saw was the opposite: Southerners threatened to secede because Northern states exercised their state sovereignties. For instance, in Senator Jefferson Davis' 1860 resolution, he stated that:"the acts of State Legislatures to defeat the purpose, or nullify the requirements of that provision, and the laws made in pursuance of it, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, revolutionary in their effect, and if persisted in, must sooner or later lead the States injured by such breach of the compact to exercise their judgment as to the proper mode and measure of redress." [2]Or this newspaper from Richmond, Virginia:"When it becomes apparent that [the Fugitive Slave Law's] operation is practically nullified by the people of one or more States, differences of opinion may arise as to the proper remedy, but one thing is certain that some ample mode of redress will be chosen, in which the South with entire unanimity will concur." [3]Therefore it is clear that in all Southern states, not just the Deep South, the preservation of slavery was obviously prioritized over state sovereignty.Example Two: The Confederate ConstitutionThe Constitution of the Confederate States of America is nearly identical to the Consitution of the United States of America, changed only in a few key areas. However, those key areas are very telling about what was valued over what. Specifically, there are numerous instances of the Confederate Constitution not only protecting the instution of slavery, but doing so at the detriment of state sovereignty.For instance, in Article I, Sec. 9(4):"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." [4]Or in Article 4, Sec. 2(1):"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." [4]And in Article 4, Sec. 3(3):"The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates [sic]; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States." [4]There are three separate examples of the Confederate Constitution blatantly denying the right of the individual state legislatures to pass any legislation against the institution of slavery. This constitution was ratified in all of the Southern states, not just the Deep South.Therefore, again, it is clear that in all Southern states, not just the Deep South, the preservation of slavery was obviously prioritized over state sovereignty.Rebuttal of my opponent's argumentMy opponent's argument is, in essence, that the Upper South did not secede until a call for troops which they saw as a violation of state sovereignty. There are several problems with this.1) Although it is certainly true that in his conscription efforts Lincoln violated the War Powers clause of the Constitution, this is not a violation of state sovereignty, it is a violation of federal Separation of Powers. The power of conscription is explicitly granted to the Legislative Branch, i.e. congress, rather than the Executive Branch, i.e. the president. Lincoln acted in a way that sapped power from congress, not from the individual states.2) This idea leans on the false idea that before the Civil War, individual states were effectively self-governing. This is an oft-cited but incorrect view. The Founding Fathers made it quite clear in the establishment of the United States that the individual states were not separate entities under a loose union. This is why a "perpetual union" is spoken of, and why for instance Alexander Hamilton states in the New York Ratification Convention that:"a reservation of the right to withdraw [...] was inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification." [5]3) What the conscription and attack at Fort Sumter truly represented was a commitment of Lincoln to reinforce federal law within the seceding states. Since Lincoln had stated that he intented to leave slavery as it was where it existed, the Upper South states were perhaps skeptical that he would militarily intervene in the affairs of the seceding states for this reason. Afterwards, it was clear that he was intervening. The remaining states therefore believed him capable of intervening in not just secession, but the institution of slavery, as that is what the original seceding states and the Republican Party itself originally devoted their platforms and declarations to.SummaryThe actions taken by Southerners in all states before and after the secession clearly indicate that the preservation of slavery was a higher priority to them than any form of state sovereignty.References[1]http://blueandgraytrail.com...;[2]https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu...[3]http://www.jstor.org...;[4]http://www.jjmccullough.com...;[5]http://founders.archives.gov...;