'States rights' is a commonly used term (I've heard Ann Coulter use this term and she was editor of her law review) that is derived from the original states being sovereign.
Of course it does, but it says nothing about states having "rights."
Nor does it say anything about 'the people' having 'rights':
Amendment X
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.
Your posted link is full of rhetoric, but it boils down to: The federal government isn't doing enough to force free states to hunt down escaped slaves.
You read exactly what you wanted to and ignored the rest. Typical public school revisionist history yankee.
"Either use federal power to force Ohio and New Jersey to obey South Carolina, or we will secede."
Once again, you've either proven that you don't have reading comprehension or, you're a typical propagandizing yankee.
First of all, that document WAS the secession instrument. It wasn't a threat to secede.
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violate the constitution to the economic detriment of other states without a legal remedy, then the constitution was no longer valid and the 'union' was a farce.
"States' rights" indeed! What a joke.
Have some more Kool-Aid, idiot.
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.