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

Thank you as well, you have made a professional and challenging debate.Fugitive Slave LawFirst let me point out a few things."The debate is what caused the upper south to leave the union, the fugitive slave law is not it." I'm not saying that it is, I'm trying to point out what the Southern states prioritized. Also, as mentioned before, people from the upper South did threaten to secede if Northern states continued to nullify the fugitive slave law. See the Richmond newspaper for an example."the south's priority was their own states [not northern states] sovereignty. "The problem with this is that it's inconsistent. You state that Southern states did care about sovereignty for other states when Lincoln made his troop call, but that they don't care about having state sovereignty when Northern states nullify the fugitive slave law. Obviously there must be some reason for this divide. And in the end, it's obvious - slavery. Southern states were in favor of state sovereignty when it wasn't opposed to the institution of slavery but against it when it interfered. My opponent is merely revealing this discrepency more, and therefore again revealing that slavery was prioritized over anything else. As James McPherson puts it:"On all issues but one, antebellum southerners stood for state's rights and a weak federal government. The exception was the fugitive slave law of 1850, which gave the national government more power than any other law yet passed by Congress." [11]My opponent argues that the states delegate power to the federal government. While this is true in a sense, it is only true in that the Constitutional Convention had representatives from individual states, as those were the governmental powers under the previous system, the Articles of Confederation. The power is truly delegated to a government by its people, without a middleman. Further, as I showed before with my quotes from Hamilton, Madison, and Washington, the founding fathers were under no delusions that this government could be reversed on a whim by the states.My opponent supports the state delegation assertion with three quotes. The first is again from the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves, which, as I discussed before, do not have any legal sway and were firmly rejected both times they were used. The second quote states that the powers are delegated by the Constitution, not the states. The third states that the power comes from the people, and not the states themselves.As for the constitutionality of the fugitive slave law, my opponent is confusing two separate legal entities. Perhaps it's a bit disingenuous to say "the fugitive slave law" when there are two - one established in the Constitution, and a far stricter one established in the Compromise of 1850. It is the latter to which I have been referring, not the former.And lastly, on the topic of the "shooting yourself in the foot." I do not buy into the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves, and have stated why already. What I was saying was that if you believe them - which you seem to - then you must believe that what Northern states was doing was perfectly legal. However, Southerners did not think this, as I have shown before. Therefore, you cannot use the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. Also, it is again evidence that Southerners only supported state sovereignty when it did not interfere with slavery.Confederate ConstitutionMy opponent states that"To abolish or allow slavery in both the CSA and US constitution, was to be decided by the states, not the federal government. "No, not at all. As I stated before, the Dred Scott decision explicitly proved that slavery could only be abolished by constitutional amendment, i.e. it required federal governmental action as well. Had the CSA truly valued state sovereignty over slavery they would have rewritten this clause. They did not.Rebuttals1) As I stated earlier, there is an inconsistency in saying that the upper South did care about other state's rights when Lincoln called for troops against the Deep south but that they didn't care about state's rights when the North nullified the fugitive slave law. And that this inconsistency vanishes if the upper South only cared about state's rights when it didn't interfere with slavery. Regardless of whether the secession was legal.2) I also do not think Northerners were legal in their nullification of the fugitive slave law. I'm just using it as an example.3) No, the deep South definitely seceded over slavery. Of that there is no question. Just look at their own words:Mississippi declaration of secession:"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." [12]Texas declaration of secession:"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time." [12]South Carolina declaration of secession:"an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution." [12]But I digress. As you said, this is about the upper South. As for them, they had an economic livelihood coming not directly through crops harvested from slavery (though that was still a large industry), but rather through the selling of existing slaves to plantations in the Deep South, where slavery was growing more and being relocated to.Before Fort Sumter and the following declaration of war, it seemed possible that Lincoln might leave the seceding states either by letting them go or allowing slavery to exist through plans like the Crittenden Compromise. If this was the case, then Upper South states need not worry, as their economic livelihood through slave selling wouldn't be threatened. However, following the declaration of war, slavery seemed to be under attack - and thus the upper South had to secede.What Was LostMy opponent then insinuates again the popular, but wrong, view that the federal government was somehow strengthened in a way unheard of before the Civil War by Lincoln. Firstyl, the state sovereignty ideal hoisted immediately before the Civil War was not an extension of the Constitution, it was a move away from it."Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."-Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861Southern states had rallied against national consolidation of power over the decades leading up to the Civil War, beginning with the Nullification Crisis of 1830. To wit:"The strengthening of national power in the 1860s reflected, in part, the restoration of the political situation that had existed before the South began to impose its deadening hand on the Union in the thirty years before the war." [13]Nullification was not a common tool used by states. It was asserted few times, and when it was it was always highly contested, and rarely successful.As for the first two quotes that follow, while it is impossible to know without context, I would venture to guess that those quotes are not referring to a post-Civil War increase in national power, but rather the increase in federal influence through programs like the Progressive Era, New Deal, and Great Society.As for the last quote, it's individual points have been addressed, but I would like to point out that it is confederate apologia.ConclusionI believe that it is certainly true that the South valued state sovereignty. However, there are times when they did not - those times were when it was in conflict with the institution of slavery. I have expressed multiple examples in this debate of when this occurred.My opponent has presented a distorted view of national government's power through early US history, and one which is mainly touted by confederate apologia. I have done my best to point out why it is not true.Please vote Con.[11]https://books.google.com...;[12]http://www.civilwar.org...;[13]https://books.google.com...;