Ask yourself what this refers to.
It is a lighter version of what Tocqueville discussed. To move against a state is to use a force contrary to the very nature upon which the government itself was created. If this occurs, that government in reality no longer exists in its valid form - it has violated itself, making departure from it possible.
I further think you are misreading the concept of secession itself, at least as DiLorenzo handles it and most confederates view it. A line can be drawn between what is secession and revolution, but IMHO you take that line too far and spread them beyond what is really meant by the concept. Secession properly functions as a matter of formalization of the process described by Tocqueville and others before him. That is what I gather DiLorenzo's view to be as well.
Then have a nice big glass of Kentucky Bourbon
A southern drink, no doubt. Did you catch this article in weekly standard a few weeks ago?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/326jkmfq.asp
and try to love "Publius," and to reject Calhoun.
One needs not make a blanket rejection of Calhoun's input if he undertakes an effort to understand it. I am not all that sure you have made this effort and, of course, invite you to do so.
I have read and thought long about Calhoun, and I judge him, at the end of the day, to be a traitor to the Regime, and a cousin to the Serpent.
Thank God he and his kindred did not prevail!
Liberty and Union, One and Inseparable, now and forever!
Richard F.