Lack of respect for rights granted under the U.S. Constitution represented a major concern for Southern citizens before the war. If you can explain how that's a STATES RIGHTS issue rather than equal rights under the Constitution, please do so. Speech after speech was made by Southern leaders complaining bitterly that Federal law, the law which obliged state officials to help with return of runaway slaves, was not enforced in certain parts of the North. In this case local and state law enforcement in New England particularly acted on their own statutes (and public opinion), ignoring Federal law which required them to assist in returning fugitive slaves to their rightful owners.

When sections of the Constitution and Federal law are held null and void because they contravene state and local ordnances, that's a case of STATES RIGHTS trumping Federal law. When South Carolina attempted nullification when Andrew Jackson was President, Jackson threatened to bring Federal troops to enforce Federal law. When the Fugitive Slave law was "nullified" in parts of the North, the Federal government did little or nothing. As you expressed it about state militia and national conscription, all states signed on to equal enforcement of Federal law. Can you see how Southerners felt they were being singled out and treated unfairly?

In antebellum times Southerners regarded the U.S. Constitution as a bulwark for their rights. The Federal government and Federal courts rarely got into issues involving state laws. THat's because, with few exceptions, Southern state laws were in concord with Federal law. However, when Republicans like William Seward began to speak of a "higher law" than the U.S. Constitution, people in the South saw that basic rights, such as the right to own certain kinds of property, would not be respected if men like Seward took control of Congress and the presidency.

To draw and analogy to your home, a STATES RIGHTS issues would be like not having the lights on in one room. On the other hand, a problem with the Constitution would be like losing your roof during a storm. I'm sure you know people who have lost a roof, and it's a major deal.

STATES RIGHTS issues generally occured after the Civil War over voting rights and segregation. For example, until more recent times the Constitution and Federal law had little to say about how, where and when states held elections. If a state decided to qualify the right to vote by a literacy test, the state had the right to do so because Federal law never got that specific. Eventually Federal judges began to interpret the XIV ammendment as the basis for overturning state laws on voter qualifications.

That's a STATES RIGHTS issue. When you hear the term STATES RIGHTS, think George Wallace; not Jefferson Davis.

We will be moving over the next few days, and don't have internet service yet, so don't feel that you need to make an immediate reply. Please take you time and go into specifics.