The right to secede was theirs, wasn't it? If yes, the why was their business, legally speaking, and a red herring. "My paramount object in the struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." - Abraham Lincoln (What "free"/"unregulated" market? US? You must be kidding me, mk!)
(What "free"/"unregulated" market? US? You must be kidding me, mk!) Oh God no, I don't believe it for a second! That's my point. If the language of NAFTA weren't a "free trade zone" and was instead a "disregulated trade zone", the discussion might be a bit closer to the truth. Of course, maybe "disregulated" isn't even the best term. Maybe "regulated around different priorities".