2. President Adams passed (and Jefferson initially supported) Alien & Sedition acts in preparation for war against France, now known as the Quazi-War of 1798.
3. President Jefferson arrested and tried for treason his own former Vice President Burr, on suspicion Burr was going to lead Louisiana to declare secession (1807).
4. President Madison moved US Army troops off the war-time frontier with Canada to Albany to be in position to put down rebellion in case the Hartford Convention declared secession in 1814.
As a matter of historical interest, we should note that these examples don't support your case.
The Whiskey Rebellion was not a "secession," per se. It was simply a...rebellion.
The Alien and Sedition Acts had nothing to do with secession. They are also widely admitted to have been unconstitutional, which is why Congress repealed them shortly thereafter.
Burr's attempt to create his own western kingdom was not a secession because it did not involve a state or states trying to leave the union. Instead, Lousiana was a territory at this time, and the Constitution had implied, and the Northwest Ordinances clarified, that territories of the United States were under federal control. Burr's effort was not "secession" in the sense this discussion means it, but would have been more akin to him trying to steal federal territory outright.
The Hartford Convention example is perhaps the closest to an issue of secession with these, but still fails as an example because your use of it essentially begs the question.
Further, we ought to note that there were a lot of other factors, not least of which were sectional rivalries, involved in the preparations to suppress the Hartford Convention. What this means is that the move to do so dids not stem from some pure-as-the-driven-snow conviction on the part of "the Founders" that "secession was wrong," but instead involved a lot of rather petty partisan and sectional concerns that would have been in play regardless of the legal status or lack thereof of secession.
All the examples you cite of the federal government militarily crushing citizen dissent, are from bygone eras, where such actions were commonplace.
No one in our government has that sort of backbone today, nor do the American people. If there’s to be a secession of one or more states, it will not provoke violence in this age.
Then you misunderstand my "case".
So now focus your attention on my actual argument, not on what you might wish it had been:
Yashcheritsiy: "The Hartford Convention example is perhaps the closest to an issue of secession with these, but still fails as an example because your use of it essentially begs the question."
No, you're wrong because Madison's response to the Hartfod Convention precisely illustrates our Founders' Original Intentions towards unapproved, illegal declarations of secession.
Yashcheritsiy: "...but instead involved a lot of rather petty partisan and sectional concerns that would have been in play regardless of the legal status or lack thereof of secession."
Irrelevant, since such is always the case in politics, including the politics of 1860-61.
My point again, in case you still haven't grasped it is: our Founders well understood the difference between lawful approved secession versus rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", treason, etc.
They set the example, in 1787 of how to lawfully "secede" from one form of government to another.