Ba'ku wasn't Federation territory, but it was surrounded by Federation territory on all sides. A bit like, say, San Marino, which is surrounded on all sides by Italy.
Dougherty: The Son'a have developed a procedure to collect the metaphasic particles from the planets rings.
Picard: A planet in Federation space.
Dougherty: That's right. We have the planet.
If you look at the full post, you might recall that I'm admittedly engaging in speculation about how to reconcile that line with the logical impossibility of a non-imperialist Federation claiming ownership of a planet that was already inhabited by a foreign culture before the Federation was formed.
And, no, I really don't think there's any other way to reconcile it. We have to assume that Dougherty is speaking informally, in terms of the Federation's control of access to Ba'ku from the space surrounding its star system, because otherwise this means that the Federation deliberately claimed ownership of an already-inhabited world whose government did not consent to such ownership -- that, in other words, the Federation engaged in imperialism.
Instead they petitioned for independence and it was granted (Two in 1986, one in 1994). They are now sovereign countries.
And it's a good and admirable thing that the United States grew out of its imperial phase and recognized that those nations have the right of self-determination, and therefore of independence.
This would seem to be a strange statement on you part, given your previous assertions that neither South Carolina or the Confederacy had any right of self-determination or a ability to obtain independence from America.
One, I question whether or not a state that had
already chosen to yield its sovereignty when it ratified the Constitution can revoke that decision. I'm open to the possibility, contingent only upon the second point I am about to make:
I don't think you can reasonably claim that the peoples of South Carolina or the rest of the seceding states expressed their will to self-determination when
one-third of their population was enslaved and thus not given a voice in their state legislatures.
Now, if every single South Carolinian and every single Southerner had had a vote and had had equal representation in their state legislatures,
then we could have talked about their right to self-determination in 1861. But as the situation actually existed, their votes to secede were not expressions of their peoples' self-determination -- it was merely an instrument of power and oppression pushed upon their people by their wealthy, slave-holding elite.
Either way, it's a very different situation than deliberately invading and occupying a foreign culture.