Yopu seem unable to provide any support from the record.
I can, and I have. I'll add a few comment to help you out.
"[T]he several states composing the United States of America [did you catch that Walt - the states form the Union, not the other way around] are not united on the principle of unlimited submission [do you have a clue as to what Jefferson meant?] to their general government; but that, by compact [an agreement, like the AoC], under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto [can't forget those amendments], they constituted a general government for general purposes [only that which involves all states, not an individual state], delegated to that government certain powers [the states formed the Union, and only gave it certain powers], reserving [meaning they keep what they didn't give the national government], each state to itself [notice that the states are still sovereign, separate entities], the residuary mass of right to their own self-government [reiteration of their sovereignity]; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers [those that the states did not give up, those that are not enumerated in the Constitution], its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect.[if the federal government - any branch - employs a power not delegated, the states (and people) can ignore it, it's illegal]"
Thomas Jefferson, Kentucy Resolution of 1798
Jefferson also opined in his 1801 inaugural address,
"If there be any among us [any state] who wish to dissolve the Union [notice that means Jefferson didn't think it was permanent] or to change its republican form [again, notice the lack of permanence], let them stand undisturbed [don't send in the military to force them to stay], as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion [the states would have their differences] may be tolerated [the federal government may not like it, but the states are free to go] where reason is left free to combat it [and at a later time the differences may be resolved peacefully]."
I'll also add these by Madison,
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few [limited] and defined [enumerated or listed]. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous [many] and indefinite [those not listed]. "
James Madison, Federalist No. 45"[T]hose who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of discord and hostility between the States, in the event of disunion ... [recognition that it can happen]
James Madison, Federalist No. 6"This ... places in a strong light the disadvantages with which the collection of duties in this country would be encumbered, if by disunion [recognition that it can happen] the States should be placed in a situation ..."
James Madison, Federalist No. 12"If we attend carefully to geographical and commercial considerations, in conjunction with the habits and prejudices of the different States, we shall be led to conclude that in case of disunion [recognition that it can happen] they will most naturally league themselves under two governments."
James Madison, Federalist No. 13"ASSUMING it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion [anybody see a pattern here] ... "
James Madison, Federalist No. 8"In a review of these transactions we may trace some of the causes which would be likely to embroil the States with each other, if it should be their unpropitious destiny to become disunited [nope, no pattern here]."
James Madison, Federalist No. 7
But James Wilson was a signer of the D of I and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Declaration of Independence, 1776, signed by:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
John Hancock
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton
I can't find a single founder that thought secession was legal or justified - I found 56 on one document.
The historical record in no way supports it.
I think you are wrong
They were talking revolution, not secession. Which is fine with me since that is what I've been calling the southern actions all along. It was a war of rebellion and if you want to say that we have a God-given right to rebellion then fine. So be it. But don't try to cloak it in an aura of legality that it does not enjoy and that does not exist.
You mean we are arguing simply over a definition of terms?
If so, you can show in British law where the colonies acted legally in breaking their ties with England.
Walt
That brings up an interesting point that never seems to get much play from southern apologists.
Where is the long train of abuses prior to 1860 of the type these worthies signed off on in the D of I?
You say breaking with England (the word 'secession' never appears, so you have no call to use that word) was justified. And so it was, by the removing of trials, quartering of troops, and all the other injustices Jefferson lays out in the D of I.
But what about such grievances the secessionists had with the feds?
Put up of shut up. Where is the justification for secession in 1860-61--even if it were perfectly legal?
I'll help you:
"It [the South Carolina secession convention] could of course, quote no direct warrant from the Constitution for secession, but sought to deduce one, by implication, from the language of the Declaration of Independence and the Xth amendment. It reasserts the absurd paradox of State supremacy-persistantly miscaled "State Rights" --which reverses the natural order of governmental existance ; considers a State superior to the Union; makes a part greater than the whole; turns the pyramid of authority upon its apex; plants the tree of liberty with its branches in the ground and its roots in the air. The fallacy has been has been a hundred times analysed, exposed, and refuted; but the cheap dogmatism of demagougues and the automatic machinery of faction perpetually conjures it up anew to astonish the sucklings and terrify the dotards of politiics. The notable point in the Declaration of Causes is, that its complaint over grievances past and present is against certain states, and for these remedy was of course logically barred by its own theory of state supremacy. On the other hand, all its allegations against the Union are concerning dangers to come, before which admission the moral justification of disunion falls to the ground. In rejecting the remedy of future elections for future wrongs, the conspiracy discarded the entire theory of republican government.
One might have thought that this might have exhausted their counterfeit philosophy--but not yet. Greatly as they groaned at unfriendly state laws--seriously as they pretended to fear damage or spoilation under future federal statutes, the burden of their anger rose at the sentient and belief of the North. "All hope of remedy," says the manifesto, "is rendered vain by the fact that the public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief." This is language one might expect from the Pope of Rome; but that an American convention should denounce the liberty of opinion, is not merely to recede from Jefferson, to Louis XIV; it is flying from the town-meeting to the Inquisition."
"With all their affectation of legality, formality, and present justification, some f the members were honest enough to acknowledge the true character of the event as the culmination of a chronic conspiracy, not a spontaneous revolution. "The secession of South Carolina," said one of the chief actors, "is not an event of a day. It is not anything produced by Mr. Lincoln's election, or by the non-execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. It is a matter which has been gathering head for thirty years." This with many similar avowals, crowns and completes the otherwise abundant proof that the revolt was not only aganist right, but that it was without cause."
--John G. Nicolay, 1881
Now, as I have indicated in the past, I don't post this data from the record for your benefit. I know you are pretty set in your ways. But the lurkers who come across this thread -will- take this to heart, and they will reject your whole position.
Walt
I can, and I have. I'll add a few comment to help you out.
"[T]he several states composing the United States of America [did you catch that Walt - the states form the Union, not the other way around] are not united on the principle of unlimited submission [do you have a clue as to what Jefferson meant?] to their general government; but that, by compact [an agreement, like the AoC], under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto [can't forget those amendments], they constituted a general government for general purposes [only that which involves all states, not an individual state], delegated to that government certain powers [the states formed the Union, and only gave it certain powers], reserving [meaning they keep what they didn't give the national government], each state to itself [notice that the states are still sovereign, separate entities], the residuary mass of right to their own self-government [reiteration of their sovereignity]; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers [those that the states did not give up, those that are not enumerated in the Constitution], its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect.[if the federal government - any branch - employs a power not delegated, the states (and people) can ignore it, it's illegal]" Thomas Jefferson, Kentucy Resolution of 1798
No one is saying that the states have to give unlimited submission to the federal government. On the other hand, they clearly have surrendered SOME of their sovereignty. I guess we can all thank God that Jefferson was out of the country during the Constitutional Convention. He was not one of the framers, in case you missed it.
Jefferson is just one voice. In short, I'll see your Jefferson and raise you a Washington, Madison, Jay, Wilson, Marshall, Jackson and Lincoln.
So I stand corrected. You have provided some data from the record. It's just not very compelling.
Walt
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few [limited] and defined [enumerated or listed]. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous [many] and indefinite [those not listed]. " James Madison, Federalist No. 45
And he would be appalled that you do so.
In his letter to Daniel Webster, dated March 13, 1833, James Madison wrote:
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the U. S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
Secession does not exist as a matter of right, according to Madison, because it is a breach of the "compact" between the States, whereas secession or "revolution" for cause is recognized without question.
So, yes, Madison -- Mr. Constitution -- recognized that there is an inherent right to revolt (i.e. secede) in the case of intolerable oppression. Given that Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, which also recognized the "self- evident" right to "alter or abolish" a government which becomes destructive, you have at least two of the Founding Fathers -- and Presidents -- on record in favor of the natural right to conduct a revolution. But revolutions are by definition -outside- the law. Just as the colonists went outside British law, the secessionists went outside US law, and no one is denying their right to do so. And that, as an aside is what Lincoln is talking about in his oft-misquoted 1848 speech regarding natural rights.
Consider also:
"The Constitution is a "compact" ordained by "the People of the United States, and not by the States in their sovereign capactities. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 324-325 (1816); and see also Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 34 (1894), and Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307 (1940) (referring to it as the "federal compact"). Madison referred to it as such in the previously mentioned letter to Daniel Webster. Even secessionist leaders of the late war of rebellion admitted that it was a compact, and argued a "breach of compact" as a ground for secession."
Again, you have finally shrugged off your lethargy to consult the actual record, and again, it simply is not very compelling.
Walt
You certainly are spinning furiously. I notice that in your post you've put what you've read between the lines right there, in between the lines. Another equally -- if not more valid -- reading, is that Jefferson is just defending freedom of speech. Notice Jefferson does not say, "If there are any states that wish to secede, let them go." He does essentially say if there are those who advocate dissolving the union, let them stand undisturbed do not use force against them. Jefferson is speaking about tolerating errors of opinion. It is a plea for free speech in the spirit of Voltaire. He is not addressing what the government would do if a state actually tried to leave the union.
It would be interesting to find out how his contemporaries understood the speech. It would be strange if in this generally conciliatory speech Jefferson were essentially to say, "if you don't like it -- leave!" Even if there's a proviso that one can always return, it's not the of thing political leaders generally tell members of the defeated party. It's far more likely that he was assuring the nation as a whole that he would not violate the liberties, even of those who were most mistaken in their views.
Then again, using your method, one could argue that Jefferson was talking about those who want to get rid of the Montreal Expos.