How would a secessionist use slavery to construct an argument defending a state's
right to leave the union?
southern states had only ratified the constitution after an agreement with the
north that slavery would never be abolished.
slavery had been listed in the declaration of independence as an unalienable
right that no government could violate.
slavery had been accepted at the time of the constitution when the union was
created; therefore, if slavery was abolished so was the union.
if legally owned property, like slaves, could be abolished by the national
government, states could secede to protect their rights,

quickly

I think the answer is Slavery had been accepted at the time of the Constitution when the Union was

created; therefore, if slavery was abolished so was the Union.

Explanation:

I'm taking a test right now so I really don't know. Please tell me if this is wrong.

If legally owned property, like slaves, could be abolished by the national government, states could secede to protect their rights

Explanation:

One of the main arguments of the Southern whites to defend secession was the State’s rights. The southern States defended that the Federation says that the Federal Government and state governments are equal upon the Constitution, which means that it would not be possible for the Union to prohibit slavery because they did not have the authority to do so.

post the grid otherwise i cant .

also it sounds like a math question not history.

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.