But isn't this much the same objection of the South, which complained that the Federal government could pass laws without a state's consent? Indeed, wasn't a MAJOR factor in secession the "nullification crisis?" Again, the South remained concerned, much like the American Colonies, that a powerful foreign government could pass laws without its consent. How is that self-governing?
Moreover, the American political system was very similar to that of the British, especially prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment. How did the revolution change things as far as that went?
The South seceded not over laws that had been passed by the federal government that it found objectionable, but over the potential for such laws to be passed now that it had lost an election.
Nullification was not an issue in 1860. That horse had died. Andrew Jackson killed it in the 1830s. To the extent that nullification was still an issue it was northern states that were implementing it, in practice if not in theory, with the various laws they passed to impede enforcement of the Fugitive Slave laws. The northern states doing so was a very major reason for southern anger.
Moreover, the American political system was very similar to that of the British, especially prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment. How did the revolution change things as far as that went?
The franchise was much more widespread in colonial and newly independent America than in Britain, where through 1832 less than 10% of the adult male population had the vote. Due largely to the much more widespread ownership of property, America had a majority of white men voting even at the time of independence, with very nearly universal white male suffrage by 1800.