This is not historically accurate. Secession was discussed and threatened just a few years after the Constitution was signed. Why would they discuss and threaten something that didn't exist? The states were free to leave at any time, it was a known commodity at the time and didn't need to be spelled out.
That is simply not true. Read the notes from the constitutional convention and read the state ratification debates. They were quite clear on what the Constitution was.
No, that's two separate things. 1. Abolish old framework. 2. Ratify new framework. So why fight to ratify a new thing that would just let the parties leave tomorrow?
Yeah, I know it was discussed by some and there was the Hartford Convention in 1814, but that doesn't mean there was an available legal measure for them to pursue in regards to secession. In fact, New England Federalists were violating other Constitutional articles in the Convention, as well, so what's another one in secession, huh? The idea that it was common knowledge or accepted at the time that secession was provided by the Constitution is silly. Some may have thought this, and eventually acted upon it in the Civil War, however, it certainly wasn't anything that was to the point of not being spelled out. Andrew Jackson would certainly disagree with you.
If we are going to go with the "it was around at the time" thing, then judicial review is absolutely constitutional.
It is the granting of powers from the sovereign states to the Congress. Granted is the keyword. Powers granted can be rescinded. Again, this was known by those that created the document. You are a history major, do some reading and research. You can't read the convention notes and ratification debates and come away with the opinion you hold. Yeah secession wasn't an option...except President Jefferson said in his inaugural..."If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Jefferson wasn't the only one during the time period to discuss a dissolution of the Union. Plenty of Federalists talked openly of dissolution during this time as well. Federalist New Englanders threatened dissolution (now called secession) quite a few times in the early 1800's and they were never militarily threatened. That option was open to them as President Jefferson showed. This idea that states couldn't dissolve themselves from the Union is ridiculous and terribly bad history. Any historical reading from that time proves otherwise.
You'll have to come to terms with that one yourself. They were free to leave day one. However, at that time, it would have been extremely unwise and was in no state's interest to expose themselves to an unfriendly world alone. Especially considering most states were just getting back on their feet post Revolution.
No, it was not discussed by "some", as if there were a small group of crazies. It was openly discussed by everyone from both parties (Feds, Anti-Feds). Even in 1839 John Quincy Adams, "will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation". There it is again, dissolve the Union. I could pull quotes all day long, it is quite easy. Read your history from that time period. It is almost laughable you hold the opinion you do and keep fighting for it against a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Again I ask, with mounting evidence. Can the states be abolished? Can the general government be abolished by the states? Only one is a yes and when you answer yes, you know that is where the sovereignty lies. Which is why you will not answer.
Before you start taking quotes on Jefferson, thinking he supports secession, you might want to revisit his commentary on the potential secessionist threats of the New England Federalists. Patrick Henry knew, stating, "Suppose the people of Virginia should wish to alter their government; can a majority of them do it? No; because they are connected with other men, or, in other words, consolidated with other states. When the people of Virginia, at a future day, shall wish to alter their government, though they should be unanimous in this desire, yet they may be prevented therefrom by a minority at the extremity of the United States." The idea that states could simply dissolve the idea of centralized authority after relinquishing their sovereignty is ahistorical and certainly represented in numerous readings from the time, not just the ones you pick and choose.
You also still haven't provided the legal mechanism for the legal procedure of secession, outside of the idea that it, somehow, was "understood" among the Founding Fathers, when it, clearly, was most certainly not.
Then there wouldn't have been a fight to ratify. Those who agreed simply would have said so long, and good luck. The reason there was a fight to ratify was because there was never the intention to leave, which is why a path for modification was built in, so those parties who detested current policy could labor to change it.
As to whether it exists on a mass scale today, depends on how you define voter fraud. The comparison is not the same however.
And John Quincy Adams opposed succession in 1812. And the quote you reference refers to war, because of his opening:
A path for modification was built in to protect the states from the possibility of general government overreach. Modification was preferred over dissolution but that doesn't mean dissolution was not an option. Even Madison/Jefferson preferred trying to go the Nullification route instead of dissolution. The states needed each other for protection. It would have been unwise at that time to dissolve, even though many of the states recognized the general government was encroaching on the states.
Ben, have you not ever noticed why the "histories" you read cut that speech off at that very moment, when quoting? It's because Adams specifically says States do not have the authority, only People. Meaning, the only way for secession is the people rising up against government, the way the founders rose up against England. Meaning the only path for succession is rebellion.
