“At pleasure with mutual consent as in adopting their new Constitution in 1788.”
This is an interesting comment. It combines mutual consent and something called “at pleasure” which we are told is not the same as a necessity.
All of which brings to mind the previous unanswered question: How did one state force 12 other states (a tenet of Brother Joe’s mother church) to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution against their will?
This question needs to be revisited now that it’s confirmed (post 1213) that the Constitution was adopted “at pleasure” which is said to be different than a necessity.
By threatening disunion.
Even as late as 1860 Northerners still wanted Union more than they opposed slavery.
jeffersondem: "This question needs to be revisited now that it’s confirmed (post 1213) that the Constitution was adopted 'at pleasure' which is said to be different than a necessity."
The 1776 Declaration of Independence defines such words as "necessity", "abuse", "usurpations", "injury" & "oppression".
The 1787 US Constitution defines such terms as "mutual consent", "consent of the governed" and "at pleasure".
In 1787 there was no necessity remotely similar to those of 1776 so Founders, in a sense, "seceded" from their old Articles of Confederation at pleasure by mutual consent.
In 1860 there was neither necessity nor mutual consent so Confederates declared unilateral, unapproved secession at pleasure.
No Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral secession at pleasure.