[dubballey]

I can't agree with the first part of your post. Imagine a hypothetical country, a vast prairie which is irrigated by a central resevoir. The people in this resevoir decide they wish to secede from the rest of the country, this done they then turn round and say, " this water belongs to us, you our previous countrymen aren't entitled to any" Whats the prairie folk supposed to do ? respect the secession.....and then starve to death ?

You're confusing an entangling set of hypothetical circumstances with the underlying principle of consent of the governed.

There is no reason why some compromise regarding the shared propery of the resevoir can't be reached as many sovereign countries have treaties with other countries, e.g., military bases like Fort Sumter.

Secondly ( and in relation to the American Civil War ) claims that the souths right to secede were founded on the principle of consent of the governed, do kind of run aground on the rock of Slavery.

Slavery does not invaldate the principal of consent of the governed. Slaves were involved in EVERY scenario presented.
* the colonies of Britain can secede, becoming individual sovereign States;
* Texas can secede from Mexico, becoming a sovereign State;
* the individual sovereign States can secede from the Articles of Confederation, formed in "perpetual union;"
* the counties of western Virginia can secede from Virginia and accepted by the US as a sovereign State in violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution