And I ‘provided quotes' from 1804 (6 years after your citation), 1811 (13 years later), and 1820 (22 years later) that suggest the opposite.
It doesn't seem to me to be too great a stretch to assume...
Yes. That does seem to summarize your position: “assume”...
...that since the purpose of the Constitution was to provide a legal structure for the creation and maintenance of a federal government, its very adoption might imply a constitutional infirmity in any doctrine which renders the maintenance of a federal government impossible.
So, upon your ‘assumptions’ you heap ‘implications.’ How nice...
However, it would be unfair to consider you or anyone else bound by Jefferson's judgment that "scission" and a federal government are totally incompatible. But that is what he said. At least in 1798. LOL.
Particularly given the opinions he voiced 6 years later – and 13 years later – and 22 years later.
“LOL.”
...I don't believe that the constitutional claim that was made by the "secessionists" (the argument that unilateral "secession" is constitutional) can be said to be indisputably correct or incorrect.
You “don’t believe?” My, that is a marvelous foundation for the (supposed) ‘rule of law,’ isn’t it?
I am now learning that many of the more capable southern politicians were advising against unilateral secession.
“More capable southern politicians?” To whom are you referring? The former U.S. Secretary of War? The former U.S. Senator from Georgia? The former President of the United States of America? (Or didn’t you know that a former President of the United States was elected to the Confederate Congress? ;>) Or do you simply categorize all of those with whom you agree as “more capable,” and discount the rest?
“LOL.”
Why were they unsuccessful? Who was in favor of these unilateral secessions and what kind of political levers did they have?
Perhaps you should review the vote totals from those Southern States that confirmed their decisions to secede by means of plebiscite. (Or were you unaware of that aspect as well? ;>)
“LOL.”
There had to be some pretty powerful people behind all of this.
Yes – many were “Southrons,” and many were “constitutionalists.” You would appear to be neither...
“LOL.”
;>)
"Now, for you to attempt to overthrow such a government as this, under which we have lived for more than three quarters of a century -in which we have gained our wealth, our standing as a nation, our domestic safety while the elements of peril are around us, with peace and tranquillity accompanied with unbounded prosperity and rights unassailed-is the height of madness, folly and wickedness, to which I can neither lend my sanction nor my vote."
With all that we now know, it's hard to imagine that anyone could possibly not wish that Stephens had been able to stop that madness.