[Dixie republican]

This is obviously a sore point with you. And no, the line from the Declaration does not support justification for nullification. I don't want to debate the causes of the Civil War with you, but let me say this: States Rights is part of the process (called procedural law) to guarantee liberty for all (law of substance). If the States Rights issue is used to bar liberty for any (slavery), then the guarantor (U.S.) of the substance law must begin to look at the procedures, and correct the process where broken.

Furthermore, since the U.S. is the guarantor of my freedom, and if a state can secede from it-threatening my freedom-then secession is illegal.

Look, I am a born and bred Alabaman, and I've heard it all on nullification and states rights. And I don't buy it. If the South had won, after voluntarily participating in the Election of 1860, I probably wouldn't be here today. None of us would. Those of us Down South would probably be part of the Commonwealth.

As far as your Reveloutionary argument, King George & Parliament left us, we didn't leave them. And won our freedom on the Battlefield, that ultimate issue solver (see Civil War).

[Ditto]

If the South had won, after voluntarily participating in the Election of 1860, I probably wouldn't be here today. None of us would. Those of us Down South would probably be part of the Commonwealth.

Being part of the British Commonwealth would have been a good outcome if the South had won, but I doubt it would have happened. The Brits ended chattel slavery in their colonies in the 1830s and the South would have never allowed that. I could see the region degrading into another Mexico, however. The landed aristocracy running the show for the peasants --- both black and white. That was the course their "society" was headed to.

By winning the war, Lincoln did far more for the South than he did the North.