“The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. “
And the seceding States believed that they had been subjected to abuses so citing Madison doesn’t change anything. There wasn’t any outside agency to adjudicate the competing claims, just raw force.
“And, as it happened, in our Founders’ case both legitimate reasons for disunion happened “
And King George and Parliament didn’t accept the colonials’ excuses for secession and sought to forcibly put down the rebellion, to bring the traitors to justice, the same words that Lincoln would use 90 years later. Rulers resent losing territory and population. The words that George III uses in his 1775 letter to Parliament could be substituted for Lincoln’s, the main difference being the archaic English of 1775.
I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government. The colonials resented being taxed for their defense during the French and Indian War. London thought that the colonies shouldn’t free ride and that they should pay the cost of their defense. If there was moral right there it may well have belonged to London.
But it was all a Big Lie, since Southern Democrats had ruled in Washington, DC, almost continuously since Day One of the Republic.
In all those years there had never been an openly anti-slavery president or Supreme Court, and Democrat leadership in Congress prevented serious anti-slavery legislation.
So the only thing which changed in November 1860 was the election, but that was plenty enough for Deep South Fire Eaters to begin organizing to declare their secessions.
But since there were no real "abuses" or "usurpations" to justify their declarations of secession, they seceded in Madison's words, "at pleasure".
Pelham: "And King George and Parliament didn’t accept the colonials’ excuses for secession and sought to forcibly put down the rebellion, to bring the traitors to justice, the same words that Lincoln would use 90 years later."
But you have the sequence of events backwards, deliberately I'm sure.
In fact colonists did not declare independence or begin general rebellion until long after King George had officially declared rebellion and began waging war on them.
Then, and only then, of absolute necessity did Founders in Congress declare their independence.
And that's the key: our Founders actually "seceded" twice, the first time in 1776 of absolute necessity from abuses and usurpations and a second time in 1788 by mutual consent to their new Constitution.
In stark contrast: Deep South Fire Eaters declared their secessions in 1860-'61 totally "at pleasure" since they had nothing secession-worthy to complain about.
Pelham: "I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government."
"Moral right" in 1776 was not the issue, necessity was.
In fact, the vast majority of Americans didn't want to "secede" as recently as two or three years before.
But King George gave them no choice -- none, zero, nada -- when he formally declared them in rebellion and sent his army to suppress them.
"Necessity" from abuses and usurpations is the reason Founders gave for their D.O.I. and also one reason for legitimate disunion cited by James Madison.
The other is mutual consent.
Deep South Fire Eaters in 1860-'61 had neither and so declared their secession "at pleasure".
Pelham: "If there was moral right there it may well have belonged to London."
Very few American colonists wanted to "secede" from Britain in the 1770s, what they wanted was representation in Parliament -- that's what "no taxation without representation" was all about.
And for some time Brits considered it, then rejected it, preferring to dictatorially rule, then when colonists objected the King declare them in rebellion and sent Britain's army to suppress colonists.
So Americans merely responded to the cues Brits sent them.
Nothing remotely similar happened in 1860.
“And the seceding States believed that they had been subjected to abuses ...”
And the other States did not believe the seceding States had been subject to abuses justifying dissolution of the compact other than by consent.
“...just raw force.”
Nothing special there. Even with adjudication of competing claims an element of raw force is involved.
“I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government.”
Actually, they rebelled against their government. If they seceded from anything it was from the British Empire.
And they used the Declaration of Independence to convey the moral right for their rebellion. What parts of the Declaration do you find immoral?