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

Your attitude, debating skills and arguments are a vast improvement over the forums I have been on. If this is the norm, I look forward to future debates on this thread. I also want to apologize for my struggle with the font and spacing. This is my first debate and I believe I have it down know. I also regret not going last so I must base this post and conclusion on what has already been said. Fugitive Slaw Law con stated"My point was that this was an instance in which state sovereignty clashed with the preservation of slavery - and that in this instance, people from both the deep South and the upper South resisted in a way that showed they prioritized slavery over state sovereignty. "However as I pointed out the south's priority was their own states [not northern states] sovereignty. If their is any doubt please read every single secession document, deep south and upper south. They never objected to the north using state sovereignty to than do the same. But the violation of their own states and constitutional laws by the northern states is what was objected to. Slavery forced a divide in the nation among sovereign states. Both the north and south acted on their sovereignty. But as mentioned, the upper south did not leave the union over this. The debate is what caused the upper south to leave the union, the fugitive slave law is not it. Con argues states only are sovereign when they leave the union. That they gave up their sovereignty only somehow as non sovereign states to than retain that sovereignty. I would say if one were to read the secession documents and relent historical documents, you will find states never gave up their sovereignty, they delegated certain powers to the government yet as sovereign always could take those delegated powers back. So when the federal government violated the states, they retained their delegated powers and full sovereignty. "they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force:"-Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison [The Father of the Constitution]“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. ”-James Madison Federalist Papers #45 "The powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States. "Virginia seccsion document I would also suggest reading South Carolina secession document for more. . http://avalon.law.yale.edu...Con than argues It was not constitutional law, since it was not in the Constitution. my opponent cites the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves as valid and legal. These resolves support the right of a state to Nullification. If one believes this, one has to believe that the nullification of the fugitive slave law is perfectly legal. My opponent has shot themselves in the foot with this inconsistency. To the first I respond"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due"article 4 clause 3 U. S Constitution Also the fugitive slave law passed congress and was backed by the U. S supreme court. To the second I say amen. of course the south supported both nullification and secession, the two vital aspects of state sovereignty just the thing you claim is illgal below. What needs to be understood what he sees as me "shooting myself in the foot" in reality is that each state in support of their sovereignty [north or south] as protection from those outside of their state. This should be self explanatory. Confederate Constitution My reasoning for showing changes made in the csa constitution was to show how state sovereign focused it was, showing that was a , main issue, even for the cotton states. As for abolishing slavery by amendment, I cannot agree more. However you have missed the point and I am not sure he grasps states rights and sovereignty as well as I would like. To abolish or allow slavery in both the CSA and US constitution, was to be decided by the states, not the federal government. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”-10th amendment U. S Constitution As I showed in my previous response, the CSA constitution in no way undermines state sovereignty at the exspence of slavery. Rebuttals1] Con argues that Lincoln calling on volunteers was not a violation of state sovereignty as secession was not legal. Two points. One lets assume it is not legal. The upper south clearly thought it was as did the cotton states and majority in the north. Since we are debating what caused the upper south to leave, we must look to them not our understanding or disagreement on a legal matter. They made it clear as I showed in my opening, that Lincoln violated the rights of those cotton states and that was the major cause of secession for the upper south. 2] Con than wants to divert the attention away from why the upper south left, to the legality of secession that he upjects to, and yet mentions northern states use of nullification, an act of a sovereighn state. I will not waste anymore space on a separate topic. I will mention I would disagree as would many in the north in 1860. That is a debate down the line I would enjoy perhaps.3] We agree, kind of. First we are debating the upper south not the deep south. The upper south stayed in the union even after Lincoln won and even after all those pro slavery deep south senators left the union. However as my first post made clear one thing did drive them out of the union. The reason Lincoln was not on the ballet is because he was a republican. I agree that the republicans running against the expansion of slavery was a cause for the deep south to leave the union. I would disagree that slavery was the only cause for the deep south to or even the major cause. Perhaps you would like to debate that issue in time. Conclusion I can only respond to arguments already made so I must [to my regret] conclude here. “Your requisition is illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, diabolical, and cannot be complied with” -Missouri Governor Jackson Response to Lincolns call for VolunteersThe above quote sums up what caused the upper south to leave the union. Con has tried to divert our attention to anything other than what the upper south said and acted on leaving the union for. My original post and arguments have gone completely untouched. The fact is the upper south state declarations, the before and after effect of lincolns violation of the cotton states clearly show what the upper south left the union over. Con has done a great job redirecting this debate to any other topic possible. He knows a discussion dealing with the event and documents that surround upper south secession will point to Lincoln violation of the cotton states liberty as the sole cause. Of his two objections over the fugitive slave laws and the CSA constitution I think my responses dealt with those objections. Showing even for deep south, state sovereignty was an issue more important than slavery. What was lost “State sovereignty died at Appomattox”-Supreme Court Justice Salmon P Chase 1864-73“States rights, which prior to 1860 had been an important northern belief as southern. Were overturned by Lincolns war" -Dean Sprague Freedom under LincolnI think with the little space remaining I should comment on what was lost when the south lost the war. Our form of government in the usa, is drastically changed from that of the founders. That major change came during the civil war with the loss of state sovereignty. Before the war states were self governing and the federal government was not the all powerful authoritative body it is today. States north and south acted on that sovereignty either by nullification or threat of secession. This check on the federal government in check and within its constitutional bounds. However with the loss of that check on the federal government after the war it has grown to be a tyrannical body. “Today's federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the constitution”-John Olin George Mason University “The US government has grown into a monstrous tyrannical body that would not even by reorganized by its founders”-Lochlainn Seabrook The Constitution Of The Confederate States Of America Explained A Clause By Clause Study Of The Souths Magna Carta “The civil war was that the right to govern is paramount over the right to live, that man is made for government, rather than that government is made for man, and that for men to claim the right of self government is to deserve and incure the death penalty”-Charles L. C minor The real Lincoln 1928