quoting BJK: "The Constitution says nothing about secession, period, but no Founder ever agreed that disunion at pleasure, meaning without either "necessity" or "mutual consent", is legitimate."
DiogenesLamp: "Except for when they *ALL* said that rightful power is based on "consent of the governed."
Which means "At Pleasure" of the people."
No, of course that's not what they said, or intended.
What they said in their 1776 Declaration was that necessity from "a long train of abuses and usurpation" drove them "to dissolve the political bonds".
"Consent of the governed" was the ultimate consequence of that necessity.
Yes, in 1788 they did a second time dissolve their political bonds (the old Articles of Confederation), and this time "at pleasure", but only by mutual consent, not "necessity" and not from any list of "abuses and usurpations" -- rather, "to form a more perfect Union", their new Constitution.
1776 -- necessity from a long train of abuses & usurpations.
1787 -- at pleasure, by mutual consent, to form a more perfect Union.
1860 -- at pleasure, no mutual consent, no necessity, no long train of abuses & usurpations. ![]()
What they said in their 1776 Declaration was that necessity from "a long train of abuses and usurpation" drove them "to dissolve the political bonds". You are both taking it out of context, and wrong about it being a "necessity." They called it a necessity, but the British people (corresponding to the Northern people in 1861) did not agree with them that their gripes were actual "necessities." They regarded them as "at pleasure" opinions.
Regarding your taking it out of context, they claimed their gripes made it necessary to leave, but their central premise was that people had a right to leave just from dissatisfaction, and "necessity" wasn't required, though they did caution against leaving " for light and transient causes, but this was a suggestion, not a requirement.