Replies

Sorry, but it's not about me, or even about you, it is about what our Founders intended for their Constitution.

I am citing what the ratifiers of the Constitution said was necessary to resume/reassume their own powers of government under the Constitution. You, on the other hand, are applying what was said in 1776 to the Constitution, which did not exist at that point.

1776 was more than 20 years before there was a Constitution, and in the interim the country had seen what worked poorly in the government under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles began to be drafted shortly after the Declaration of Independence. The founders of the 1776 period did a poor job of setting up a central government under the Articles. So, 20 years later a convention in Philadelphia drafted the Constitution to fix the problems the Articles had caused. States then individually and separately ratified the Constitution. In ratifying it, they defined what was necessary to reassume/resume their own governance under the Constitution, which was not what others said or might have intended in 1776.

[You quoting Madison in 1830 in a letter to Trist]: "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."

Who is it that gets to decide if there have been usurpations or abuses of power, the states doing the abusing or the states that have been abused? Your answer would seem to be, 'the states doing the abusing.'

Here, from another 1830 letter by Madison [Madison to Hurlbut], is another Madison statement:

"But whatever respect may be thought due to the intention of the Convention, which prepared & proposed the Constitution, as presumptive evidence of the general understanding at the time of the language used, it must be kept in mind that the only authoritative intentions were those of the people of the States, as expressed thro' the Conventions which ratified the Constitution.

So, here is what Madison said in the 1788 Virginia ratifying convention:

"An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to. If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."

What about Jay and Hamilton (Madison's coauthors of the Federalist Papers) and the majority of the other New York ratifiers who voted in their ratification convention for the statement:

"That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness"

And the New Yorkers followed up such statements by declaring in their ratification document:

Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid [rustbucket: like the "necessary for their happiness" statement] cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, ... 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.

Madison had earlier made his own statement about happiness in his Federalist Paper #45:

"Were the plan of the [Philadelphia] convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union.

rustbucket: "I am citing what the ratifiers of the Constitution said was necessary to resume/reassume their own powers of government under the Constitution.
You, on the other hand, are applying what was said in 1776 to the Constitution, which did not exist at that point."

No, I'm simply drawing a clear distinction between "secession" by necessity as in the 1776 Declaration of Independence versus "secession" at pleasure as in 1788, with ratification of the new Constitution and simultaneous "secession" from the old Articles of Confederation.

Our Founders believed in, and practiced "secession", "disunion", "withdrawal" or rebellion-against (under whatever name) by necessity in 1776, when they listed about two dozen different reasons, including:

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

That is genuine, no-nonsense, no bull-crap necessity, according to who? BroJoeK? No, according to our Founders.

Our Founders also believed in and practiced "secession", disunion, etc., at pleasure, but then only by mutual consent, such as in their 1788 ratifications for their new Constitution.
In that particular case they defined "mutual consent" as 3/4 approval by state ratifying conventions.

And in every case of "secession", rebellion, etc., which our Founders confronted which did not qualify as either "necessity" or "at pleasure by mutual consent", our Founders opposed & defeated those efforts -- see, for example, my post #286, which lists some of those.

rustbucket: "In ratifying it, they defined what was necessary to reassume/resume their own governance under the Constitution, which was not what others said or might have intended in 1776."

But in every case they referred to what was "necessary" or to the actual conditions of 1776, "injury or oppression".
No Founder ever claimed an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.

rustbucket: "Who is it that gets to decide if there have been usurpations or abuses of power, the states doing the abusing or the states that have been abused?
Your answer would seem to be, 'the states doing the abusing.'"

That's nonsense, anybody can claim anything, but if there's no material evidence to support such claims, then they are dismissed out of hand.
And that was the case in all the examples I listed in post #286 above, and I could have listed more -- from the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion to the 1857 Mormon Rebellion.
Our Founders did not tolerate unfounded claims of "injury or oppression".

And what about 1860?
In 1860 Southern Democrats had ruled in Washington almost continuously for 60 years -- since the election of 1800.
As recently as 1856 they had elected majorities in both houses of congress, the Presidency and Supreme Court resulting in: lower tariffs of 1857, the SCOTUS (9-2) Dred Scott ruling protecting slavery, RE Lee sent to defeat "Indian savages" and Mexican "banditti" in Texas, Southern commanders against the Mormon Rebellion and over the US Paraguay Expedition (1858), a majority of Southerners in Buchanan's cabinet and Buchanan administration support for the Kansas pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution.

In short, as of 1860 Southerners had no reasons to complain about Washington, DC, because they ruled it.
And yet in November 1860 they began organizing for secession -- what changed?
Answer -- nothing changed, except the election of Lincoln's "Black Republicans" who had not yet even taken office.

That is the very definition of "at pleasure", and no Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral declarations of secession "at pleasure".

rustbucket: "So, here is what Madison said in the 1788 Virginia ratifying convention:

"An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to.
If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."

I think that alleged quote is disputed and was never later acknowledged by Madison himself.
The word here used is "dissatisfied", only one step removed from "annoyed by" or "in disagreement with", suggesting any minor dispute might result in secession -- Madison never agreed to that, but maintained the clear distinction between "necessity" and "at pleasure".

rustbucket quoting NY: "That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness"

Again, the key word here is "necessary", the opposite of "at pleasure".

rustbucket quoting Madison Federalist #46: "Were the plan of the [Philadelphia] convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan.
Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."

Right, Madison is here talking about voting & mutual consent, not unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, which no Founder ever proposed or supported.