I am not pro-Confederate, Joey; I am anti-Lincoln. Try to keep up.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "If the constructors of the Constitution had intended the states to lose their sovereignty upon ratification, it would have explicitly said so within the powers authorized to the general government in Article I, Section 8, or, negatively, in the prohibited powers of Article I, Section 9."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Rubbish. Our Founders in 1776 considered their Union "perpetual" and nothing in the 1787 Constitution changed that."
The time-frame of "perpetual" turned out to be only 7 or 8 years, Joey. I am going to make a wild guess that the Framers were hoping the Union would last more than 7 or 8 years.
But, the fact remains, if the Framers wanted the federal government to have the defined power to coerce, they would have approved the last clause of Resolution 6:
"Questions being taken separately on the foregoing clauses of the sixth resolution they were agreed to. It was then moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the last clause of the sixth resolution, namely, "to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil it's duty under the articles thereof." on the question to postpone the consideration of the said clause it passed in the affirmative…"
"The (sixth Resolution) stating the cases in which the national Legislature ought to legislate was next taken into discussion… The (last) clause (of Resolution 6. authorizing) an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration."
"Mr. (Madison), observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — , A Union of the States (containing such an ingredient) seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con."
[Debates of May 31, 1787, in Max Farrand, "The Records Of The Federal Convention Of 1787 Vol 01." 1911, pp. 21, 52, 54]
The truth is, if that clause had been included in the Constitution, the Constitution would have not been ratified. The ratifiers were looking for more protection from the federal government, not less.
For example, the New York Ratification Document contained a long list of rights that they declared to be retained rights (e.g., constitutional;) and it contained a statement that the delegates of New York were awaiting a Bill of Rights before they would be completely on-board:
"Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence, nevertheless, that, until a convention shall be called and convened for proposing amendments to the said Constitution, the militia of this state will not be continued in service out of this state for a longer term than six weeks, without the consent of the legislature thereof; that the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this state, respecting the times, places, and manner, of holding elections for senators or representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same; and that, in those cases, such power will only be exercised until the legislature of this state shall make provision in the premises; that no excise will be imposed on any article of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United States, or any of them, within this state, ardent spirits excepted; and the Congress will not lay direct taxes within this state, but when the moneys arising from the impost and excise shall be insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a requisition upon this state to assess, levy, and pay, the amount of such requisition, made agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislature of this state shall judge best; but that in such case, if the state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion, pursuant to such requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this state's proportion, together with interest, at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the time at which the same was required to be paid." ["New York Ratification Convention, July 26, 1788." Avalon Project, July 26, 1788]
Virginia had similar statements in their document.
Well, they got their Bill of Rights, which we now know as the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.
*****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "So every Founder believed disunion could only come through mutual consent (as in 1787) or through necessity (as in 1776). No Founder ever supported unilateral declaration of secession at pleasure. The recognized Father of the Constitution, James Madison, explained exactly why, here."
That is true. Have you read the letter to Trist? Madison mentions the implied right to secede is a reserved right (aka, 10th Amendment;) and he mentions several times that a serious abuse of the compact by a party or parties is sufficient justification for the affected party or parties to secede:
"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."
"Applying this view of the subject to a single community, it results, that the compact being between the individuals composing it, no individual or set of individuals can at pleasure, break off and set up for themselves, without such a violation of the compact as absolves them from its obligations. It follows at the same time that, in the event of such a violation, the suffering party rather than longer yield a passive obedience may justly shake off the yoke, and can only be restrained from the attempt by a want of physical strength for the purpose. The case of individuals expatriating themselves, that is leaving their country in its territorial as well as its social & political sense, may well be deemed a reasonable privilege, or rather as a right impliedly reserved. And even in this case equitable conditions have been annexed to the right which qualify the exercise of it."
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
[Letter to Nicholas P. Trist, February 15, 1830, in Gaillard Hunt, "The Writings of James Madison - Vol 09." 1910, pp.355-356]
Two plus years later his views had not changed:
"I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.
"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of —98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.
[Ibid. Dec 23, 1832, pp.489-492]
Frankly, both Madison's and Jefferson's views about secession were consistent over the years.
Mr. Kalamata
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
He gives two ways the constitution can be dissolved. By agreement of all the people or by usurpations or abuses. Now luckily the founding fathers gave us an example of what usurpations and abuses rise to the level of invoking the natural right to revolution, the revolutionary war.
The stamp act was passed in 1765 and it wasn't until 11 years later, after a long string of these usurpations and abuses, and the founding fathers pleading with England to recognize their rights as Englishman, in a government where they had no representation or voice, before they declared their independence and appealed to the force of arms.
Compare that to the southern rebels who rebelled because a party they disagreed with lost an election in a constitutional republic with a strong set of checks and balances. Some rebels began rebelling before the new party had even been sworn into office! I think it's safe to say that the founding fathers would have laughed at the southern rebels use of the right to revolution. Then George Washington himself would have taken charge of the United States Army and lead it into suppressing the rebellion. And good old George had a tendency to hang rebels, see Shay's rebellion.