Ditto, I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree with you for the most part. State governments have restricted liberties more often in the past. My arguement is (and you agree with it) is that if the federal government does not follow the RULES it is supposed to, then the states have a right if they wish to leave.
Here is the problem with the federal government today. It is not challenged at all by the states. The states are merely a puppet of the federal government. Roe V. Wade is clearly unconstitutional, but the Federal government has allowed this law to stay in place. The states should have a right to nullify this, but they cant. So what is happening today is the federal government is getting stronger and stronger and it is taking away liberties guaranteed to all people.
The fed's today go unchallenged and THAT is not what the constitution set out to do. Extreme State Right's advocates are wrong in believing that states are supreme. But on the flip side their opponents are wrong that the Fed's are always supreme. The system was set up to make the states and fed's compete with eachother so as neither one would gain dominance.
I dont think we are in disagreement here though.
I don't disagree with you, but in the end, the people are getting exactly the government they are asking for. Our mission as Conservatives is to change people's opinions, (and in the case of Roe, change their hearts as well) to bring government back into its proper relationship with the Constitution, the states and the people.
People like DiLorenzo with his crackpot theory that it is somehow Lincoln's fault and his distorted and dishonest interpertation of history, do not help in that effort.
I think Richard and David can elaborate better than I on why these 'Civil War' debates are material to the challenges we face today.