The Southern States fought for the right of self-determination in their affairs, slavery was not an issue of great importance at the time of the framing of the Constitution and slavery was legal. However, you seem to conveniently forget that the Founders expressly set up a limited government with ENUMERATED powers, and that Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our states [and of the United States] assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."
Slavery was definitely a big issue at the constitutional convention. Ever hear of the 3/5 compromise?
Secondly, -you- don't have a right to perfect selfish determination, do you? Can you just say you like the view from Spaghetti Junction here in Atlanta at I-85 and I-285 and block it off for your personal use? It's a cool view; you can see all the way downtown in one direction and it seems like halfway to North Carolina in the other.
No one can stop you, can they? Wouldn't they being infringing on your rights if they ask or force you to move?
It is the same concept in the framing of the Constitution. The people of the states agreed not to coin money, or enter treaties or the rest. They gave up something to get something else. All this boo-hoo-hoo-ing about self determination makes the boo-hoo'ers sound like toddlers.
No, actually they expressly avoided that.
On page 197 of _Creating the Bill of Rights_ the following exchange from The Congressional Register for 18 August 1789 is presented:
The 9th proposition in the words following was considered, "The powers not delegated by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively."
Mr. Tucker Proposed to amend the proposition by prefixing it, "all powers being derived from the people," thought this a better place to make this assertion than the introductory clause of the constitution, where a similar sentiment was proposed by the committee. He extended his motion also, to add the word "expressly" so as to read "The powers not expressly delegated by this constitution."
Mr. Madison Objected to this amendment, because it was impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express powers, there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution be descended to recount every minutiae. He remembered the word "expressly" had been moved in the convention of Virginia, by the opponents to the ratification, and after full and fair discussion was given up by them, and the system allowed to retain its present form.
Mr. Sherman Coincided with mr. Madison in opinion, observing that corporate bodies are supposed to possess all powers incident to a corporate capacity, without being absolutely expressed.
Mr. Tucker Did not view the word "expressly" in the same light with the gentlemen who opposed him; he thought every power to be expressly given that could be clearly comprehended within any accurate definition of the general power.
Mr. Tucker's motion being negatived, The committee then rose and reported the amendments as amended by the committee So, we can conclude that the omission of the word "expressly" was intentional, and the intent was to acknowledge the existence of Federal powers by implication.
So how about that?
In fact, the framers did the -opposite- of what you suggest.
You need to stop using that CSA flag in your posts. People will associate it with ignorance.
FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
... All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them.
The Southern States fought for the right of self-determination in their affairs, slavery was not an issue of great importance at the time of the framing of the Constitution and slavery was legal.
Another quote, from the same address:
"One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."
These are just tidbits to entice you to read the full address. I think you will find President Lincoln addresses your points, and I would say rather well, but I imagine you will disagree. It would not be surprising as many have given their lives on your side of the argument, as well as mine.