Replies

It is a famous letter from Madison on this very subject. It expresses the idea more directly than any other I've seen, but here's the key point: no founder ever contradicted Madison ' s words.

Really? Do you consider Thomas Jefferson a Founder?:

"Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?â€¦The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."---letter to John C. Breckinridge,Aug. 12, 1803

"Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power."---letter to To Dr. Joseph Priestley, Jan. 29, 1804

I think Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, is completely in line with Original Intent, as am I. It's you False Causers that have distorted the original intent of the Constitution.

Philosophical question for you, professor: do you believe that maintaining the union is more important that individual liberty?

But Founders ' Original Intent is the Conservative point of view, so if you reject one, you've also rejected the other, FRiend.

The driving force behind the Constitution was individual liberty and removing the yoke of tyranny. If you answer yes to the question posed above then you've rejected original intent and conservative viewpoint.

BTW, I'm not your FRiend or friend.

cowboyway: "I think Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, is completely in line with Original Intent, as am I.
It's you False Causers that have distorted the original intent of the Constitution."

No, you misunderstand Jefferson's words.
What Jefferson here granted was his mutual consent for separations under certain benign circumstances.
This is 100% consistent with Madison's letter of some years later, which clearly spells out mutual consent as valid in disunion.

But on other occasions, neither Jefferson nor Madison were nearly so agreeable.

In 1807, just three years after your quotes, when President Jefferson learned that his former Vice President, Aaron Burr, intended to declare unilateral secession from Louisiana, Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.
No "mutual consent" from President Jefferson there.
Just a few years later, in 1814, when President Madison learned that New England Federalists were complaining about the War of 1812, and meeting to discuss unilateral, unapproved secession, Madison moved US Army forces from the frontier with Canada to Albany, New York, in case rebellion should break out in New England.
No "mutual consent" from President Madison there.

cowboyway: "Philosophical question for you, professor: do you believe that maintaining the union is more important that individual liberty? "

The US Constitution allows for temporary suspension of certain liberties -- i.e., habeas corpus -- in the event of rebellion or invasion public safety requires it.
So my question to you is: do you believe in the US Constitution?

cowboyway: "The driving force behind the Constitution was individual liberty and removing the yoke of tyranny.
If you answer yes to the question posed above then you've rejected original intent and conservative viewpoint."

Actually, no, we already had all that in the old Articles of Confederation, and they were not satisfactory, so the new Constitution in 1787 was intended to provide more structure and authority for central government -- not too much, of course, but just enough to make a viable nation.

That was our Founders' Original Intent and represents the truly conservative view of our time.