You see now there is part of the problem. You may see those item as referring only to "Southern Rights". While I see them as violations of the rule of the laws of the land agreed upon by the United States Congress and the determined by United States Supreme Courts rulings of the time.
They have nothing to do with "Southern Rights" but everything to do with "Equal Rights" under the law. Just because New York was doing something didn't mean that Louisiana had to do the same thing.
In modern day issues, just because Massachusette allows gay marriage doesn't mean that Texas has to allow it under the Constitution. Because under the 9th Amendment it is not an issue directly addressed by the Constitution and therefore is delegated to the States to decide for themselves. It can become a Constitutional Issue if we amend our Constitution to make it so.
And Yes all states regulate marriages differently and it has always been an issue that the states have regulated. You can't marry your sister legally in any of these United States. If you and your sister, being consenting adults, wanted to get married, what would be the difference in that and two men, as consenting adults, wanting to get married? Utah at one time in its history allowed poligamy. They do not now. Why? Why NOT? It was a condition of their admission to the United States. There is no implyed right under the US Constitution to marry anyone. It is a state regulate function.
There WAS an implyed right under the Constitution to own slaves. There was an implyed right to property. If the citizens of New York wished to not exercise that right and banned the practise, that was their choice under the Constitution, and they were free to do so, And did. BUT, they did not have the right to demand of Alabama that they could not exercise that right of ownership. And they could not force that decision upon Alabama by governmental use of force, "Legally".
In each of the issues, that I listed, there was a point of contention, which was the point of the ORIGINAL post about division in this country then and now. Your narrowly focused responce fails to point out the common element in each of these issues, and that was the rule of law was being violated, and trust in the United States Government, that laws would be enforced fairly and equally was being eroded in each case.
That lead to Secession!
When people demand their rights, as in 'States Rights' or 'Equal Rights', it means that they believe that someone was threatening them. What we have to determine is did they, or do they now, have these rights in the first place? That is the reason the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, now wasn't it. The people were demanding those 'equal rights', and they had to be codified. The same thing with "States Rights'. The southern people demanded that those rights, which had already been codified, be respected and enforced. Just the same way that we are demanding that the border of this country, and immigrations laws, be enforced today. And because they are not enforced, as we feel they should be, we are losing confidence in our present Government ability to protect the American citiizen, and wonder what they (the federal Government and certain politicians within it) are really up to?
We are, in my opinion, headed down the same road today as we were in 1850. As in 1850, we have not completely given up hope in the Governments ability to right itself just yet, or our ability to change the situation within peaceful means. When we do give up on that hope, as the southern people did in 1860, there will be another Civil War. All we really need right now is a spark, A 'John Brown's raid', or a 'bleeding Kansas', or a one sided election, to be in 1860.
History repeats itself, when we do not learn the proper lessons that it teaches us.