[FLT-bird]

But by leaving out the key words, "at pleasure", you've misquoted both me and our Founders' original intentions. Those Founders' intentions can be found in many quotes, most completely spelled out by our Father of the Constitution, James Madison in his now famous letter to Nicholas Trist, with which I'm certain you are familiar. I'm also certain you well understand that the entire Lost Cause ideology is built on a foundational claim that 1860 Fire Eating Secessionists were inheritors of our 1776 and 1787 Founders' Original Intentions. They weren't, and one way we can know that is to realize your compulsion to misquote and leave out Founders' key distinction between disunion for a just cause, as in 1776 versus secession "at pleasure" as in 1860.

Reading the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

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.

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. Robert E. Lee's father was Light Horse Harry Lee - Washington's best cavalry commander. Jefferson Davis' father served in the Continental Army. My own Great Great Grandfather (Thomas Jefferson ....then the family name) who was born in 1815 in Petersburg, Virginia was the grandson of a man who served in the Virginia Militia and fought against the Redcoats in the War of Secession from the British Empire. His son, James Monroe (then the family name) who was the great grandson of that Virginia Militia man served in the Confederate Army in the War for Southern Independence. OF COURSE they were the inheritors of the Founding Fathers.

[BroJoeK]

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:

1. "When... it becomes necessary..." -- "necessary", is not "at pleasure".

2. "...declare the causes which impel them to the separation." -- "impel", is not "at pleasure".

3. "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..." -- "destructive", not "inconvenient" or "unpleasant", to be discarded "at pleasure".

4. "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.

5. "... 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.

6. "... such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government..." -- again, "necessity" is the opposite of "at pleasure".

7. "...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.

8. "...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".

9. "...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.