[DoodleDawg]

So lets say they launched a rebellion to protect their forest timber. Would that allow them to exercise their rights to leave?

If done with the agreement of both sides of the issue then it doesn't matter what the underlying reason for leaving is.

You keep holding up that "slavery" shield to protect yourself from having to defend a clearly tyrannical position.

Since I'm not the one claiming that some states have no rights while other states do then I don't think I'm the one defending tyranny.

[DiogenesLamp]

If done with the agreement of both sides of the issue then it doesn't matter what the underlying reason for leaving is.

So to clarify, you're okay with the slavery as a reason to leave so long as you go through a pomp and circumstances ceremony to make it look pretty?

Since I'm not the one claiming that some states have no rights while other states do then I don't think I'm the one defending tyranny.

I would point out that this is a straw man argument, but I have a feeling you don't grasp such complex concepts.

I'll simplify for you. I made no remark even resembling that assertion.