[BroJoeK]

Yashcheritsiy: "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..."

Then you misunderstand my "case".
So now focus your attention on my actual argument, not on what you might wish it had been:

1. Our Founders clearly understood the difference between lawful secession and unlawful rebellion, insurrection, treason, etc.
   
2. Faced with rebellion, etc., they took decisive actions to defeat it, as my examples in #213 above are intended to illustrate.
   
3. At the same time, Founders understood the possible need for lawful secession, and were very clear on what that is:
   • Mutual consent, such as approval by Congress or Convention of the States.
     
   • "usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect," meaning major breach of compact making it's mutual obligations null & void.

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.

[Yashcheritsiy]

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.

The problem is that you weren't even successful in trying to make your own point then, because none of the examples you cited, with the possible, partial exception of the last one, were ever understood to even be attempts at a lawful secession, and they weren't even billed as such by those participating in them.

Face it, your examples were bad ones and didn't support your argument.