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.
I'd be wary of that. Of course, one always has to take into account details and circumstances and nuances that absolutists ignore. But a thorough-going relativism can end up in nihilism. Relativists excuse too much.
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.
The men of 1776 had put a lot more energy into seeking reconciliation and compromise. "Self-determination" was an idea that some might say they were working towards, but it wasn't really their idea. Rebellion was a last resort. The secessionists were rasher, more assertive, and they had put up with far fewer "abuses" than the patriots of the Revolutionary War had. You believe what you believe, but I suspect that to credit the Confederate's association of themselves with the Founders is to show more sympathy or support with the Confederacy than most people would have for it.
If a state or region feels that it is being unfairly exploited and oppressed and can't attain redress, the right of rebellion is available to it. But it's still best to work within the existing constitution to attain redress of grievances, or if that is possible separation.
While I don't share the current unquestioning leftist veneration of Ghandi or King, such people did show more patience and persistence than the Confederates. They were able to realize their goals by working within existing channels, or by creating new, pacific channels of political action. Whatever one thinks of the character or other views of Ghandi or King, their tactics do seem to be both more successful and more moral than the ways of the 19th Century.
The insight that they had was that a modern democratic republic can't be as oppressive as tyrannies are. There is a point at which the brutality needed to maintain a questionable status quo will repel the majority, if critics and dissenters don't make themselves more repellent. Show people the brutality of the system and the system will collapse. Having seen in the 20th century what tyranny really is, it's hard to accept the Confederate rhetoric about the evils of the Federal Government in 1860.
I haven't read Hoppe, but he seems to be one of those economists (Rothbard, DiLorenzo) poaching on the historians' territory and using the abstract and rationalistic ways of economists to solve dilemmas which need the more experiential and concrete methods of historians.
Given our current democratic and libertarian culture, what people want they will eventually get. If they want separation eventually they will get it, but there are good reasons why nations put obstacles in the way of secession. Frivolous secessionist movements result in fragmented, Balkanized societies.
In keeping with our constitutional system, there's every reason to make sure that people really want what they claim to want. And every reason to make sure that they understand the consequences of what they want. Putting some hurdles in the way of separatist movements isn't oppression or tyranny. It's a way of avoiding rash or frivolous or pernicious secessions, that simply cause harm.
I heard that the San Fernando Valley wants separation from the rest of Los Angeles. If they keep at it and work at it hard enough they will eventually get their own city charter. If they unilaterally declare their independence, muster an army, and start seizing property, their movement will probably be crushed.