[BroJoeK]

rustbucket quoting Madison: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act."

Thirteen states joined in happy-hippie Union at pleasure:

Sure, just as marriage is (usually) a voluntary act between adults, easy to do, not so easy to get out of.
Madison certainly never intended to mean that the Union of states was a "free love" affair, a mere hippie-dippy "commune" of states where they might come & go as they wished, at pleasure.

rustbucket: "Madison was responding to Patrick Henry's argument that the Southern states would be outvoted in the Union what with 7 Northern states and 6 Southern states (as counted back then).
So, Madison's response deals directly with Henry's argument.
It had nothing do do with your assertion Madison always made a "distinction between 'necessity' and 'at pleasure'. "

Again, the key word in that alleged Madison quote is "dissatisfied", only slightly stronger than "annoyed with" or "disagree with" and in no-way equivalent to our Founders' Declaration of Independence word, "necessary" or "necessity".
Indeed, "dissatisfied" for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from "at pleasure", and therefore I say the quote is fake, and was never repeated or even acknowledged by Madison afterwards.

Indeed, you cannot find a quote where Patrick Henry himself declares secession at pleasure perfectly acceptable.

rustbucket: "Statements of what the Southern states decided were "necessary" for their secession are always interpreted by you as "at pleasure."
I doubt that any of the seceding states considered them that."

No, I'm saying factually that on November 5, 1860 Southern states had no legitimate or "necessary" reasons for secession, none!
Nor did they even threaten secession on November 5.
And yet suddenly, after November 6, some (Mississippi & Georgia) pretended that secession was now urgently "necessary" (while neither South Carolina nor Texas claimed it).
So what changed?
Answer: absolutely nothing except the constitutional election of a new President.

That is the very definition of "at pleasure".

rustbucket: "And that is exactly what Virginia did in 1861.
In 1861, Virginia did assemble in Convention, and they did recall their delegated powers.
In 1861, they did cite and use the Virginia reassume powers of governance statement written by Madison, Marshall, and three other Federalists and issued in the 1788 ratification document."

Sure, but you skipped right past the key point here: Virginians first voted against secession at pleasure.
By a huge margin Virginians understood in March 1861 that there was no valid reason for secession, no "injury or oppression" as specified in their ratification statement, and so they rejected secession.

Only after the Battle of Fort Sumter did the majority find enough "injury or oppression" to justify secession, and even then a large minority so objected they themselves seceded from Virginia!

No Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.

rustbucket: "Need I say it? There you go again."

Sure, repeating the facts and truth for a very slow-learning pupil... ;-)

rustbucket "You cite Thomas Jefferson. So can I. Here is Thomas Jefferson to John Breckinridge, 12 August 1803 [Source, bold emphasis added]:"

That is a most curious quote considering that fewer than three years later President Jefferson had his VP Aaron Burr arrested and tried for treason for the crime of attempting to lead Louisiana to secede from the Union.

rustbucket: "I shall be out of pocket for perhaps a week.
On the road again, per Willie Nelson.
Even in these Covid times. See you later."

I've been amazingly healthy (thank God!), never had the flu, not even a bad cold, but at my age Covid seems serious enough to take precautions, so I signed up for the shot when it becomes available.
Will let you know how it goes, FRiend.

[rustbucket]

Aaron Burr is a case of a non-resident of the Louisiana Territory plotting to take Louisiana away from the US and maybe even take Texas away from Mexico. This was a clear case of filibustering on Burr’s account, not a formal secession by the citizens of a state. Quite different. Here is an example of a filibusterer: William Walker.

A number of filibusterers tried to take Texas, or parts of Texas, from Mexico. They would gather small, independent, armies of adventurers and head into Texas. One of the first was the Philip Nolan in his expedition of 1800-1801 into Texas. From “Texas, A Historical Atlas” by A. Ray Stephens, copyright 2010:

”Some researchers suggest that Nolan, a protégé of General James Wilkinson (commander of U.S. military operations in the Southwest) was an associate in a plot involving Wilkinson and Aaron Burr, a New York politician and later vice president of the United States, to wrest control of the lower Mississippi region from the United States and join that area with Spanish territory, including Texas, for an empire of their own.”

Nolan and his party of 28 men, constructed a log fort in North Texas, and commenced capturing horses for later sale. 120 Spanish soldiers fought and overcame them in 1801 after Nolan was killed by a cannonball. The prisoners were taken into Mexico and years later released after one of them, determined by lot, was killed.

The Gutierrez-Magee Expedition of 1812-1813 was perhaps the largest effort of Texas filibusterers or freebooters, as they were then called. Here is a link about Augustus William McGee. I have a picture of a commemorative gravestone for him in the Presidio La Bahia in Goliad, Texas, where he died in 1813. The more formal name of the Presidio is “Presidio Nuestra Señora de Loreto de la Bahía”.

Magee aligned with a Mexican, Jose Bernardo Maximiliano Gutierrez de Lara. Initially their force numbered about 500 men. They and their filibustering group took over part of Texas, including Nacogdoches, Trinity, La Bahia (later called Goliad), and Bexar (later called San Antonio). At one time they numbered 1,400 men and had defeated Spanish troops near San Antonio. They were later overwhelmed in battle by a Spanish force of 1,800 men.

Secession was thought by many as legal before the Civil War. That is the period we have been arguing about. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White in 1867 declared secession was not legal. That Supreme Court case is the present interpretation on the legality of secession in the United States. Given that, I do not, and would not, advocate the secession of any current state.