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

Firstly, I will respond to my opponent's rebuttal of my own contentions.Fugitive Slaw LawMy opponent states that:"It is clear the nullification of the fugitive slave laws was not a issue to cause the upper south to leave the union. They chose to stay in the union even after northern states had done so." However, neither upper nor deep South states left the union merely because of the nullification of the fugitive slave law. That's not why I mentioned it. 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.My opponent also states that:"every single secession document talks of the states retaining and acting on their sovereignty."However, examination of the specific times these terms are mentioned, such as in the Viriginia declaration of secession:"that the Union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State." [6]Demonstrates that these terms are used to show the rights of sovereignty Viriginia gains upon becoming an independent nation, not as the natural rights a state within the Union has.My opponent also says:"They did not object to northern states using sovereignty, but northern states defying federal constitutional law and their rights to property."It was not constitutional law, since it was not in the Constitution. The fugitive slave law being violated was part of the Compromise of 1850. Later in their argument, my opponent cites the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves as valid and legal. These resolves support the right of a state to Nullification. If one belives 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.Confederate ConstitutionMy opponent accuses me of not including important parts of the CSA Constitution that reinforce state sovereignty. It is important to note that most Southern states did value a certain degree of autonomy, and I would not deny that. However, citing non-slavery related articles to support the contention that the Confederate Constitution valued state sovereignty above slavery is meaningless. My contention was that in the Confederate Constitution, several times the institution of slavery is granted priority over state sovereignty.To point out that:"The states of the CSA had the right to coin money."Is a non sequitur.Also, I should mention that the 10th Amendment as described is the same as in the United States Constitution.My opponent states certain desires of Southern states and the implications of the certain cited bills, but with neither context nor citations to support this. The quote of the Virginia supreme court case has no citation and lacks context. Given that it does not state the word slavery or anything related, it could be about nearly anything.My opponent states that the CSA Constitution copied the USA Constitution's clause on slaveholding being a state issue. This is not true, and was even decided in the US Supreme Court in the famous Dred Scott decision:"The body which gives the supreme law of the land, has just acceded to their demands, and dared to declare that under the charter of the Nation, men of African descent are not citizens of the United States and can not be" [7]That decision demonstrated that under the US Constitution (and by extension the CSA Constitution which kept the related clauses) the only way slavery could be abolished at all was by constitutional amendment. Which is, of course, how it eventually was ended.Rebuttals1)My opponent states that:"the use of the volunteers to suppress the cotton states was the major violation of state sovereignty."How so? Secession was not a legal right of a state government, and therefore the territories of the South were in rebellion. As Commander in Chief, Lincoln had a responsiblity to bring the rebellious states back in the Union. An objection to this would be to state that before the Civil War, states were sovereign to the degree that they could declare a secession legally, but that brings us to the second point:2)In order to prove that the states were separate sovereign entities, my opponent cites two things - the Viriginia and Kentucky Resolves and Democracy in America. My opponent acts as though these have equal authority to the source I have cited, the New York Ratification Convention.However, it is important to note that firstly, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves were written as an objection to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and argued that states had the right to declare pieces of legislation unconstitutional. They were later cited during the 1830 Nullification Crisis as an argument against the Tariff of Abominations. But in neither of these cases was the application of the resolves successful or legally binding. The Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed under the Jefferson administration upon his election in 1800, and the Tariff of Abominations was removed through a federal compromise. To imply that the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves had any legal power is ludicrous.Further, citing Jefferson as an authority on the Constitution is dubious considering he was not present at the Constitutional Convention.As for James Madison, note that in a letter to Hamilton he wrote:"the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" [8]Secondly, while Democracy in America was a politically significant work, it is also not legally binding.On the contrary, the New York Ratification Convention was an event that actually set the constitution in place, and therefore is very legally binding.Lastly, George Washington, president of the Constitutional convention, had this to say about it:"In all our deliberations on this subject [the perpetuity of the government] we kept constantly in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence" [9]States could not slip out of the Union at will at any point in history. Plain and simple.3) My opponent cites here the positions of the Republican Party on slavery. To be clear: it is completely true that before and at the beginning of the Civil War, the Republicans had no intentions of imposing abolition. However, it is not true that Southerners believed them. After all, the Deep South certainly seceded over slavery, and why would they if they believed the Republican's promise not to end slavery.The reason is context. In 1856 the Republican Party put forward the radical John C. Fremont as their candidate, and he did intend to abolish slavery (this was before the Dred Scott decision). This alienated most moderates, including the smaller American Party which would have been more sympathetic to the Republican cause otherwise. In order to attract more voters in the next election, the Republicans chose a the comparatively moderate Lincoln as their candidate.[10]Of course, Southerners remembered Fremont and knew this was just a ploy to gain moderate votes. If they'd believed Lincoln's promises not to end slavery, why would they have refused to put him on the ballots? Why would they have then seceded when he won? The answer is that even if Lincoln himself did not want to immediately end slavery, he did want to prevent its expansion. And every new free state was another two senators and member of the house who were against slavery to them, which only signalled that at some point, an amendment would be passed. That is why they saw Lincoln as the beginning of the end.[6]http://www.civilwar.org...;[7]http://history.furman.edu...;[8]http://www.constitution.org...;[9]https://books.google.com...[10]Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson