[jeffersondem]

The reason I asked about the term “at pleasure” was because I could not find it in the DOI and it sounded like something that had been scabbed-on. Let me look again in the U.S. Constitution and see if I can find it there. Perhaps it is somewhere in the 9th or 10th amendments.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The reason I asked about the term 'at pleasure' was because I could not find it in the DOI and it sounded like something that had been scabbed-on."

The term Original Intent defines US Constitutional conservatives.
What did Founders mean at the time by what they wrote?
In the case of disunion or secession, their words are clear and consistent -- "at pleasure" secession is not constitutionally valid, while disunion by "mutual consent" (i.e., 1788) or "necessity" from oppression or usurpations (i.e., 1776), those are valid.

Of course, Jeffersondem, if you are not a strict constructionist who values Original Intent, if you believe the US Constitution is a "living document" which can mean whatever-the-h*ll you want it to mean... then you are not a real conservative and may belong with other Democrats on more "progressive" sites.