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.
the WAR was ONLY about dixie LIBERTY & our "tattered, barefooted, frequently hungry lads in gray rags" couldn't have CARED LESS about "some rich guy's right to trade in human flesh", as they could NOT have afforded a slave, had they wanted to buy one. over 95% of the soldiers/sailors/marines of the CSA military forces had GROSS assets of TWENTY-FIVE USD ($ 25.oo) at the outbreak of the war. most of their families had COMBINED assets of less than ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS! (ours was a PEASANT REVOLT, led by a handful of professionals like LEE & JACKSON.)
they fought for FREEDOM from a faraway government (which they believed was abrogating their GOD-given right to be LEFT ALONE), fighting against a cruel IMPERIALIST invader, for their states/county/parish/town & for HONOR & each other.
free dixie,sw