Really now?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"
"the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Typical public school revisionist history yankee.
I have attended private schools exclusively.
First of all, that document WAS the secession instrument. It wasn't a threat to secede.
I didn't say the document was a "threat to secede" I said the following, quoting my own post verbatim: "The document essentially claims that South Carolina is leaving because"
Second, it documented the states that committed unconstitutional acts, such as Ohio and New Jersey and stated that if some states could violate the constitution to the economic detriment of other states without a legal remedy, then the constitution was no longer valid and the 'union' was a farce.
Upon ratifying the Constitution, the South Carolina legislature was perfectly aware that the federal government - and not any individual state - was competent to determine the constitutionality of state acts and that South Carolina had no authority to judge the constitutionality of New Jersey laws.
This was not a new discovery for South Carolinians.
Moreover, the federal Supreme Court -which was competent to judge in such matters - had upheld the substance of South Carolina's complaint in the Dred Scott case.
Have some more Kool-Aid, idiot.
It's interesting how your rhetoric gets more and more personal the more you are gotten the better of in an argument.
Let's summarize:
The proffered South Carolina document does not itemize any usurpation of its own powers by the federal government. The only concrete complaint, once all the high-flying rhetoric is cleared away, is that other states have laws that South Carolinians don't like and the federal government is not intervening in the internal affairs of those states to the extent that South Carolina would prefer.
In the actual historical circumstances of the time, the federal government was already sending teams of federal marshals into Northern states to forcibly reclaim alleged fugitive slaves - sending a team of three hundred marshals to extract one fugitive from Boston in a very famous incident.
However, the Northern states insisted upon having a legal hearing first to determine if a fugitive truly was a fugitive or whether the bounty hunter working on behalf of the slaveowner was just grabbing anyone fitting the description off the street.
South Carolinians wanted such individuals seized and transported immediately without any bothersome legal process.
This is not a usurpation by the federal government of South Carolina's powers by any stretch of the imagination.
So, I ask again, what state powers were actually usurped?
The answer is: none. None at all.
The 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, which was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, called for a commissioner to hear evidence concerning the alleged fugitive slave. If the commissioner was satisfied from affidavits or depositions that the individual in question was indeed the escaped slave in question, the laws in various Northern states that might have called for a trial or habeas corpus or testimony of the alleged fugitive slave did not apply. The status of the individual instantly changed to that of one governed by the laws of the state from which he escaped. Northern state laws that might have given other rights or procedures to the slave did not apply.
That is not to say that in some cases innocent free Northern blacks might have been taken to the South, or, for that matter, that Northern mobs might not have intimidated a few commissioners to rule in favor of the slave. The large majority of hearings were resolved in favor of the slave owner, but many many more slaves, perhaps 10 to 1, successfully escaped.
South Carolinians wanted such individuals seized and transported immediately without any bothersome legal process.
As long as they were satisfactorily identified in the legal procedure set up under the Fugitive Slave Law, South Carolina was correct in wanting fugitive slaves returned immediately. Consider, for example, Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1843) on the clause in the Constitution concerning the return of persons owing service in another state (e.g., fugitive slaves):
The clause manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave, which no state law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control or restrain. The slave is not to be discharged from service or labor, in consequence of any state law or regulation. Now certainly, without indulging in any nicety of criticism upon words, it may be fairly said, that any state law or state regulation which interrupts, limits, delays, or postpones the right of the owner of the slave to the immediate possession of the slave, and the immediate command of his service and labor, operates, pro tanto, a discharge of the slave therefrom.
That's one of those rights of the people you were mentioning. In this case the slave owner is the person with rights to the services of the slave.
Once Southern states started seceding, a number of Northern states started revising or repealing their personal liberty laws that had delayed or effectively prevented the return of fugitive slaves. They were too late, however, to stem the animosity that had build up over the years in the South to the Northern nullification of the Constitution.