I guess that's aimed at least partially at me. And I will say for the record that I am not pro-southern. I am very happy the war turned out the way it did. I am also an historian, and I realize that historical debates are more complicated than which team you cheer for. I understand the Southern point of view, just as I try to understand the point of view of the Visigoths against the Romans (Anyone care for that debate?) This is a debate I've heard several times. It is usually very simplistic. It goes something like this: Slavery was bad, so the North was right. It's not that simple. Slavery was surely an issue, but it has very strongly influenced the debate in a direction that is fundamentally wrong. Slavery and secession are two separate issues. New England threatened to secede in 1815 over the War of 1812. South Carolina threatened to Secede in the 1830s because the Tariff of 1828 made imported goods too expensive and helped to ruin the economy of the South.
As to why there is a correlation between people's political opinions and this issue, most people who favor a limited federal government believe that power should rest with the states on most issues. That's the way the Constitution was set up, and that's why the 10th Amendment was adopted. If the Federal government is not given a power, if the states are not denied a power, and if no personal liberties guaranteed by other parts of the Constitution are at stake, then powers are supposed to rest with the states. So that line of reasoning leads us back to the issue of state's rights and responsibilities.
Lastly, it has always been my experience that when people use Hitler as an example in any debate it's only because they have nothing useful to say.
Oh, and I vote for free will.