[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "There are several quotes from various Founding Fathers prior to ratification of the Constitution that all say it was a VOLUNTARY act."

Voluntary meaning by mutual consent.
So all Founders did practice "secession" from necessity as in 1776 or from mutual consent as in 1788, but no Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
For the full explanation, see Madison's letter to Trist, 1830.

FLT-bird: "...they did not set out any specific list of conditions that had to be satisfied before exercising the right of secession..."

Of course they did.
First, they acknowledged no unlimited "right of secession".
Instead they did define "necessity" in their 1776 Declaration.
And they defined "mutual consent" in their 1788 ratifications of the new Constitution.

FLT-bird: "They CERTAINLY did not say that anybody but each state itself had any right to sit in judgment as to whether those "conditions" were satisfied"

Perhaps not, but they did clearly define "treason" and they provided for Federal responses to rebellions, insurrections, "domestic violence" and invasions all of which happened in 1861.

FLT-bird: "Here are the express reservations of the three states... "

Virginis: "...may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."

That is not "at pleasure", but rather for material breach of compact.

New York: "...may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness..."

"Necessary" refers us to the 1776 Declaration which clearly spells out what that word implies.

Rhode Island: "...may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness..."

There again, "necessary" as in 1776.

FLT-bird: "Nobody at the time of ratification said this was a partial ratification of the constitution..."

Right, because no state then ever demanded an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
All understood that necessity and serious breech was required for disunion, just as they experienced in 1776.

FLT-bird: "There was no implied grant of all sorts of extra powers to the federal government....such as the power to prevent secession."

So Federal government took no actions to stop secessions in 1860 or early 1861.
Federal government was, however, granted powers against rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and treason.

FLT-bird: "What Madison or anybody else said AFTER ratification is irrelevant. "

Hardly, since Madison's words clearly spell out Founders' Original Intent, which is a First Principle of conservatism.
Of course, as a devoted Democrat you may not comprehend such a thing, but here's what you might "get": no Founder, not even Jefferson, ever wrote words which expressly contradicted Madison's to Trist.

FLT-bird: "He was not a party to the contract.
The states and the federal governments were."

So you deny that Madison is our recognized Father of the Constitution, whose opinions on what it means matter a lot?
If so, that will be a huge disappointment to our FRiend jeffersondem, who holds Madison in the highest esteem, especially regarding the word "interposition".

As already shown, no Founder ever directly contradicted Madison's 1830 words to Trist.
And every Founding President dealt with issues of rebellion, insurrection, treason, "domestic violence", invasion or secession.

FLT-bird: "Bottom line: … We have no express delegation of power by the sovereign states to the newly created federal government that it would have the power to prevent any state from leaving what everybody understood to be a voluntary union based on consent."

That's why there was no military action taken by either of Presidents Buchanan or Lincoln to stop secession or forming the Confederacy.
Hostile Union military response only became possible when Confederate actions were matters of rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and treason.

The issue was permanently decided, sealed and closed once Confederates formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

[jeffersondem]

“If so, that will be a huge disappointment to our FRiend jeffersondem, who holds Madison in the highest esteem, especially regarding the word “interposition”.”

That is an interesting comment.

Can you cite a post of mine where I have used the word “interposition?”

[jeffersondem]

“Of course, as a devoted Democrat you may not comprehend such a thing, but here's what you might “get”: no Founder, not even Jefferson, ever wrote words which expressly contradicted Madison's to Trist.”

One of the reasons Jefferson didn't contradict Madison's words written to Trist in 1830 may be because Jefferson died in 1826.

And it was not necessary for any founder to take Madison's words off the table. Madison did that himself - in the conclusion of the Trist letter.

Said Madison: “I have made no secret of my surprize and sorrow at the proceedings in S. Carolina, which are understood to assert a right to annul the Acts of Congress within the State, & even to secede from the Union itself. But I am unwilling to enter the political field with the “telum imbelle” which alone I could wield. The task of combating such unhappy aberrations belongs to other hands. A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not, and should never forget that his arguments, whatever they may be will be answered by allusions to the date of his birth.”

Madison knew of his limitations in the last years. We have to respect that.

[FLT-bird]

BroJoeK:

Voluntary meaning by mutual consent. So all Founders did practice "secession" from necessity as in 1776 or from mutual consent as in 1788, but no Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.

False! I've posted the quotes. Go back and read,BroJoeK:

Of course they did. First, they acknowledged no unlimited "right of secession". Instead they did define "necessity" in their 1776 Declaration. And they defined "mutual consent" in their 1788 ratifications of the new Constitution.

No they didn't. Furthermore they never anywhere agreed that there was any authority above that of each state in the voluntary union to determine when a state could secede.BroJoeK:

Perhaps not, but they did clearly define "treason" and they provided for Federal responses to rebellions, insurrections, "domestic violence" and invasions all of which happened in 1861.

all of which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.BroJoeK:

Virginis: "...may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..." That is not "at pleasure", but rather for material breach of compact. New York: "...may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness..." "Necessary" refers us to the 1776 Declaration which clearly spells out what that word implies. Rhode Island: "...may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness..." There again, "necessary" as in 1776.

who determines necessity/necessary? Each State. Nobody else! There was no authority higher than theirs to determine that. ie the right of secession is unilateral.BroJoeK:

Right, because no state then ever demanded an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure. All understood that necessity and serious breech was required for disunion, just as they experienced in 1776.

It is up to each state to determine for itself when secession is necessary.BroJoeK:

So Federal government took no actions to stop secessions in 1860 or early 1861. Federal government was, however, granted powers against rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and treason.

Correct! The federal government acted unconstitutionally in 1861. It exercised a power - ie the power to prevent secession - it was nowhere delegated by the states in the Constitution.BroJoeK:

Hardly, since Madison's words clearly spell out Founders' Original Intent, which is a First Principle of conservatism. Of course, as a devoted Democrat you may not comprehend such a thing, but here's what you might "get": no Founder, not even Jefferson, ever wrote words which expressly contradicted Madison's to Trist.

Hardly. The parties to the constitution were the states and the newly created federal government. What Madison thought decades later is not important. What the states agreed to is. We can see what the states agreed to by looking at what Madison and the other federalists wrote in the Federalist Papers and we can see what the states agreed to as evidenced by their express provisos explicitly reserving their right to unilateral secession.BroJoeK:

So you deny that Madison is our recognized Father of the Constitution, whose opinions on what it means matter a lot? If so, that will be a huge disappointment to our FRiend jeffersondem, who holds Madison in the highest esteem, especially regarding the word "interposition".

No. I deny he was a party to the contract called the Constitution. I can nowhere find the words "James Madison" in the Constitution. I see a lot about the states and the specific powers delegated by the states to the newly created federal government.BroJoeK:

As already shown, no Founder ever directly contradicted Madison's 1830 words to Trist. And every Founding President dealt with issues of rebellion, insurrection, treason, "domestic violence", invasion or secession.

As has already been shown, you're wrong about that and in any event, it doesn't matter. What matters is what the states actually agreed to.BroJoeK:

That's why there was no military action taken by either of Presidents Buchanan or Lincoln to stop secession or forming the Confederacy. Hostile Union military response only became possible when Confederate actions were matters of rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and treason.

Lincoln denied their right to secede, expressed a demand for tax money and sent a heavily armed fleet into their territory. That is denying their right to unilateral secession and exercising a power the federal government was never delegated by the states in the constitution.BroJoeK:

The issue was permanently decided, sealed and closed once Confederates formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

The issue was not decided. Might does not make right.

[jeffersondem]

“Of course, as a devoted Democrat you may not comprehend such a thing, but here’s what you might “get”: no Founder, not even Jefferson, ever wrote words which expressly contradicted Madison’s to Trist.”

One of the reasons Jefferson didn’t contradict Madison’s words written to Trist in 1830 may be because Jefferson died in 1826.

And it was not necessary for any founder to take Madison’s words off the table. Madison did that himself - in the conclusion of the Trist letter.

Said Madison: “I have made no secret of my surprize and sorrow at the proceedings in S. Carolina, which are understood to assert a right to annul the Acts of Congress within the State, & even to secede from the Union itself. But I am unwilling to enter the political field with the “telum imbelle” which alone I could wield. The task of combating such unhappy aberrations belongs to other hands. A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not, and should never forget that his arguments, whatever they may be will be answered by allusions to the date of his birth.”

Madison knew of his limitations in the last years. We have to respect that.