[x]

Their seeing themselves that way was an interpretation, a part of their world view, and as such may have led to misguided actions on their part. But interpretations do not have factual content and thus cannot be characterized as false. A quibble, perhaps ...

Okay, then I'd say that the comparison the secessionists made of themselves to the men of 1776 was an inappropriate or terribly incomplete analogy.

I am a supporter of a very general right to unilateral right to secession and in particular in the case of the Confederacy in 1861. I am not by any means an apologist for the Confederacy in general or any particular personalities thereof.

Okay again, but the idea of unilateral secession, which is not found in the Constitution, is a serpent's tooth that caused much trouble in 1861. Pursued as the men of 1861 did, unilateral secession couldn't help but make serious problems and increase the likelihood of war. For the reasons I've given in my previous post, I believe these troubles were inherent in the idea of secession on demand. That doesn't mean that the union was indissoluble, just that the country as a whole would have to have a say in the process of secession or dissolution.

Constitutional processes are shock absorbers that calm passions, encourage compromise, and put energies to constructive use. Theories of unilateral secession and absolute state sovereignty have the opposite effect, encouraging haste, thoughtlessness and hotheadedness.

I don't think that secession falls in the same category as absolute individual rights to free speech or freedom of the press or freedom of religion. I suspect the question is closer to contract or marriage law, where both rights and responsibilities are involved, and opting out one-sidedly counts as desertion or breach of contract.

[Aurelius]

"That doesn't mean that the union was indissoluble, just that the country as a whole would have to have a say in the process of secession or dissolution."

The problem with this is, and one reason I insist on the right of unilateral secession, is that the seceding party will inevitably be in the minority, and if the majority has an expectation of a revenue transfer, or other advantage, from the party wishing to secede, as in the case in 1861, they will (unjustly) oppose that secession.

Have you read Hoppe's book? Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order -- It begins with an absurd attack on logic which would be worthy of Non-Sequitur or WhiskeyPapa, but, unlike those two, he is not devoid of intuitive understanding. He makes, and I believe quite soundly, the case that if we are to have just governance, permission of unilateral secession is absolutely necessary.

Tell me why he is wrong.

[Aurelius]

"Okay, then I'd say that the comparison the secessionists made of themselves to the men of 1776 was an inappropriate or terribly incomplete analogy."

But I would see that only as a relative statement - a comparison of their world view to yours, but which makes no absolute statement about their worldview. It is only a statement of how their worldview, as they have passed it on to us, is seen through your eyes. As you must have seen by now, I am a pretty thouough-going relativist.

What is your objective basis for asserting that:

..."the comparison the secessionists made of themselves to the men of 1776 was an inappropriate or terribly incomplete analogy."

There are many of us who believe thar their characterization was quite accurate, and I speak as one, who, as you know, has eschewed any support for the late Confederacy.