Replies

FLT-bird: "Hmm.
I don't see the words "at pleasure".
I do see consent of the governed and whenever the people of a state decide that the government becomes destructive of these ends (meaning consent) it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
So the power to decide what is "destructive of these ends" rests with the people of each state according to the Declaration of Independence.
"at pleasure" is a term you have invented which is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence."

Madison's term, "at pleasure" is not in the DOI because there was nothing "at pleasure" about it!
Instead, our Founders used much stronger words:

"When... it becomes necessary..." -- "necessary", is not "at pleasure".
"...declare the causes which impel them to the separation." -- "impel", is not "at pleasure".
"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..." -- "destructive", not "inconvenient" or "unpleasant", to be discarded "at pleasure".
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes..." -- "light and transient causes", are synonymous with "at pleasure", and should not be used to change governments.
"... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..." -- "abuses and usurpations", "reduce them under absolute Despotism", these are the opposites of "at pleasure" reasons.
"... such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government..." -- again, "necessity" is the opposite of "at pleasure".
"...history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States..." -- "injuries and usurpations", "absolute Tyranny", these are the opposites of "at pleasure" secessions.
"...In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." -- "Oppressions", "repeated injuries" and "define a Tyrant" are opposites of "at pleasure".
"...We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends" -- yet again, "necessity" is the opposite of "at pleasure".

By the way, we have discussed Madison's views on "at pleasure" disunion, so we might well also mention Jefferson's views on secession (which he calls "scission"), expressed in a June 4 1798 letter to John Taylor:

"...perhaps this party division is necessary to induce each to watch & debate to the people the proceedings of the other. but if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the union, no federal government can ever exist."

FLT-bird: "Also it is laughable to claim the 1860-61 secessionists were not inheritors of the 1776 secessionists original intentions.
Of course they were.
They were the children and grandchildren of those 1776 secessionists."

But you clearly don't yet grasp the essential fact about 1860 Fire Eater secessionists, which is that they were Democrats, and Democrats, by definition are devotees to, indeed worshippers of, the Big Lie, and in 1861, one Democrat Big Lie was that they accurately represented our Founders' original intentions.

But the truth is that Democrats didn't then, don't now and never reliably have.
And the reason is as obvious as it is simple -- the first Democrats' original supporters were anti-Federalists who opposed ratification of the US Constitution in 1788.
Their successors have also opposed it, by whatever means they believed necessary, ever since.

BroJoeK: "at pleasure" is a term you have invented which is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence." Madison's term, "at pleasure" is not in the DOI because there was nothing "at pleasure" about it! Instead, our Founders used much stronger words: "When... it becomes necessary..." -- "necessary", is not "at pleasure". "...declare the causes which impel them to the separation." -- "impel", is not "at pleasure". "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..." -- "destructive", not "inconvenient" or "unpleasant", to be discarded "at pleasure". "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes..." -- "light and transient causes", are synonymous with "at pleasure", and should not be used to change governments. "... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..." -- "abuses and usurpations", "reduce them under absolute Despotism", these are the opposites of "at pleasure" reasons. "... such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government..." -- again, "necessity" is the opposite of "at pleasure". "...history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States..." -- "injuries and usurpations", "absolute Tyranny", these are the opposites of "at pleasure" secessions. "...In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." -- "Oppressions", "repeated injuries" and "define a Tyrant" are opposites of "at pleasure". "...We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends" -- yet again, "necessity" is the opposite of "at pleasure". By the way, we have discussed Madison's views on "at pleasure" disunion, so we might well also mention Jefferson's views on secession (which he calls "scission"), expressed in a June 4 1798 letter to John Taylor: "...perhaps this party division is necessary to induce each to watch & debate to the people the proceedings of the other. but if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the union, no federal government can ever exist."

Oh. Madison's letter. Did he publish this letter before ratification? Did he include this in the Federalist Papers? Did he say this at the time the constitution was ratified by the sovereign states? No? Then it is just one man's opinion after the fact. It is NOT evidence as to what the states agreed to at the time.

Nowhere in the DOI or the Federalist papers or the US Constitution does it say a state may not secede or that it requires a permission slip from anybody else to secede.

BroJoeK: "But you clearly don't yet grasp the essential fact about 1860 Fire Eater secessionists, which is that they were Democrats, and Democrats, by definition are devotees to, indeed worshippers of, the Big Lie, and in 1861, one Democrat Big Lie was that they accurately represented our Founders' original intentions.

more irrationality and namecalling from you. The Democrat party in the mid 19th century is radically different from the Democrat party today. Just as the Republican party today of today is becoming quite different from the Republican party of 20 years ago. Parties change over time just as societies and the values they hold change over time. Deal with it.

BroJoeK: But the truth is that Democrats didn't then, don't now and never reliably have. And the reason is as obvious as it is simple -- the first Democrats' original supporters were anti-Federalists who opposed ratification of the US Constitution in 1788. Their successors have also opposed it, by whatever means they believed necessary, ever since.

Antifederalists - like George Mason and Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution for a variety of reasons. It lacked a bill of rights. It lacked any restrictions at all on the "general welfare". They knew better than to trust government and knew it would - like any government - always seek to usurp ever more power for itself.