I not avoiding the question, states rights debate is a dead horse I can whip at any time.
The republicans were in the process of abolishing slavery within the laws of the land and eventualy would have amended the constitution to that effect with or without a civil war.
The southern democrats decided to secede to protect their right to own slaves claiming the constitution gave them the right to do so.
Only they weren't willing to ask to be allowed to secede in the halls of congress.
Just as new States are voted upon in congress so should the secession of states have been voted upon in congress. They chose to circumvent a legal process they could not win.
The southern democrats choose to ignore the constitution and the laws of the land by doing so.
As has been pointed out time and time again by those that argue for states rights The southern democrats believed that the constitutions of the individual states had more legal authority over them then the US constitution, and yet the first thing they love to point out is that the US constitution guarentees states right.
So which has more legal power, the individual state constitutions or the US constitution, if you say that The US constitution does because it guarentees states rights then clearly The Southern democrats by not arguing for their secession in the halls of congress ignored the constitution to suit their needs.
No, you ARE avoiding the question......repeatedly
-------------
The southern democrats decided to secede to protect their right to own slaves claiming the constitution gave them the right to do so.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_3s10.html
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3
Document 10
House of Representatives, Fugitives from Justice
Mr. Mason, of Massachusetts, delivered at length his motives for approving the bill. The Constitution, formed in the spirit of compromise, had guarantied this kind of property to the Southern States, and as it appeared from the insufficiency of the existing laws, that the proposed bill was necessary to secure this right, he was willing to adopt the measure, as he was always willing to approve any measure to effect what the Constitution sanctioned.
The question on the passage of the bill was then taken, and decided in the affirmative--yeas 84, nays 69.
The bill passed and became part of the law of the land.
***
Can you show me the part of the Constitution that gave the government the authority to tell the People what property they could or could not own?
Can you show me the part of the Constitution that gave the President the authority to cause the deaths of almost a million Americans because he has an attack of *Enlightenment*?
-------------
So which has more legal power, the individual state constitutions or the US constitution
Depends on the venue. Are you talking civil legal power or statutory legal power?
Power over what? The People or the States?
-------------
if you say that The US constitution does because it guarentees states rights
The US Constitution does guarantee States rights because the States created the federal/national government. Thus the legal axiom 'that which you create, you have the right to control'.
Do you think the Founders pledged their 'lives, fortunes and sacred honor' to construct a behemoth that had legal control over every aspect of their lives?
-------------
The Southern democrats by not arguing for their secession in the halls of congress ignored the constitution to suit their needs.
The south didn't have the legal onerous to 'argue' for federal permission to exercise a right they already possessed.
-------------
The north broke the compact by not returning the slaves.
The south wasn't legally obliged to argue, acknowledge or obey a contract that no longer existed.
STATES have POWERS, which in FREE societies, are granted to them by the voters (those powers may be WITHDRAWN/modified at any time that the citizens CHOOSE to revoke those powers, in FREE states).
only FREE PERSONS/CITIZENS have RIGHTS.
didn't they teach you that relatively simple but IMPORTANT concept in your "gubmint apruved pubic screwl sistim"???
free dixie,sw
it's that you are SO PROGRAMMED by the ARROGANT elitists out of DAMNyankeeland (who wouldn't SPIT on you if you were on fire & LOL at anybody who believes their KNOWING lies!)that you AUTOMATICLY & UNthinkingly respond NEGATIVELY to everything/everybody who is southern. you believe the worst of their LIES, UNthinkingly.
it's so BOVINE of you.
free dixie,sw
Here's more information about this for your perusal.
http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/fedstate_lessonplan.htm
Introduction
The judicial system in the United States is unique insofar as it is actually made up of two different court systems: the federal court system and the state court systems. While each court system is responsible for hearing certain types of cases, neither is completely independent of the other, and the systems often interact. Furthermore, solving legal disputes and vindicating legal rights are key goals of both court systems. This lesson is designed to examine the differences, similarities, and interactions between the federal and state court systems to make the public aware of how each system goes about achieving these goals.