Replies

The key point for you to grasp here is that I follow Madison on this subject, and that no other Founder ever seriously contradicted him, qualifying Madison's words as "Founders Original Intent".
So, FRiend, once you've grasped that you are not arguing with BroJoeK, you are arguing with Madison, then we can make some progress, even at this late stage in life... ;-)

Which Madison was that? The one that said the following when trying to get the Virginia Ratification Convention to ratify the Constitution? My emphasis below.

An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to. If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence.

Hmmm. Merely "dissatisfied."

Madison was a member of the five-member committee along with future Chief Justice John Marshall who put together the words in Virginia's ratification document:

The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.

The Virginia secession convention used those very words put together by Madison, Marshall, and three others in their April 17, 1861, Ordinance of Secession: [Link]:

AN ORDINANCE

To Repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution:

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.

Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain that the Ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong to a free and independent State. And they do further declare that the said Constitution of the United State of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.

This Ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day when ratified by a majority of the votes of the people of this State, cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted.

Done in Convention, in the city of Richmond, on the seventeenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the eighty-fifth year of the Commonwealth of Virginia

JNO. L. EUBANK,
Sec'y of Convention.

That did not take effect until they the voters of Virginia, the sovereign voice of the state, approved the ordinance, which they did. Checking with their voters directly was a big step further than what the original 13 did to form the Union in the first place. In the only instance where the voters of an original state (RI) voted on whether to join the Union under the Constitution, they rejected it by a ten to one margin. It was later approved by a small convention.

The Constitution was ratified in each of the original 13 by 13 separate conventions, each commissioned by the people of their state for that purpose. The people that gave the power are the ones who can take it back. From former poster 4 ConservativeJustices (later known as 4CJ):

John Marshall [during the Virginia Ratification Convention] reiterated that the powers can be resumed by the states, '[w]e are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim, that those who give may take away. It is the people that give power, and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it.'

Marshall went further, stating that 'the people hold all powers in their own hands, and delegate them cautiously, for short periods, to their servants.' Not a perpetual delegation.

The people of each state separately delegated powers to the Federal Government. The people of an individual state can resume or reassume the powers of government if they so chose. There is no power given to the lumpen mass of all the American people in the Constitution. The lumpen mass can't reassume or resume something they didn't have to begin with. The people of an individual state can.

This is all consistent with the Tenth Amendment, which says [my emphasis below]:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"Respectively" means "individually."

I've told you much of this before. So why do I respond now? I only reply to you now to perhaps educate some who are new to these Civil War threads about what the actual history was rather than your fractured version of Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine.

rustbucket: "Which Madison was that?"

Good question.
Since everybody grows, matures or as they say today "evolves", which version should we credit?
Well, as a general rule, the more mature, longer considered opinion should be given priority -- unless there are circumstances discrediting it.
But I see none such in this case regarding Madison.

Further, we remember that to save his political career, Madison "evolved" from staunch Federalist in 1788 to anti-Federalist and Jeffersonian Democratic Republican by 1799.
Then late in life Madison returned to his roots, writing a strong defense of Union against suggestions it might be dissolved "at pleasure".

rustbucket: "The one that said the following when trying to get the Virginia Ratification Convention to ratify the Constitution?
My emphasis below.

"An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to.
If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."

Obviously playing the politician, Madison here used a word, "dissatisfied" which can mean different things in different contexts.
For example: political "divorce" being likened to marital divorce, we might look at two types of "dissatisfied".

A young married couple, in the vigor of life, does not one evening consummate their relations because one spouse is "tired" and "feeling ill".
The other spouse is, naturally "dissatisfied", but whatever dissatisfaction is greatly tempered by concern for the well being of the partner.
That is a "light and transient cause" of dissatisfaction and would absolutely bring on no thoughts of divorce.
But now, for sake of argument, let's suppose suddenly it's learned the reason for "tired" is an extra-marital affair, and "feeling ill" the result of affair-caused morning sickness!
Now that is an entirely different category of "dissatisfied", and could certainly lead to something important in their relationship.

So, which form of "dissatisfied" did Madison refer to?
Of course, as a politician, Madison left it to his listener to hear what he wanted to hear.
But later in life, Madison makes clear that he did not believe in disunion "at pleasure" or for "light and transient causes".

Nor did any other genuine Founder.

rustbucket quoting April 17, 1861: "The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States."

And here we see a key point I've posted over and over: the reason Virginia refused to declare secession before Fort Sumter, and along with Virginia also North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas, the reason was they needed a legitimate Constitutional excuse.
They could not legitimately secede "at pleasure" or "for light and transient causes", but Fort Sumter provided them the excuse they needed.
Now and only now, could they claim "injury and oppression" justifying unilateral unapproved declaration of secession.

And that, seems to me, is entirely reason enough to explain why Jefferson Davis ordered the military assault on Fort Sumter in the first place.
In one quick move, Davis doubled the Confederacy's white population and military manpower.

rustbucket quoting Marshall at Virginia's constitutional convention, 1788: "[w]e are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim, that those who give may take away.
It is the people that give power, and can take it back.
What shall restrain them?
They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it."

First, I think we should question the quote itself, along with the one alleged of Madison, as to whether it is certainly authentic.
Casual comments overheard in a hallway or dining room should not necessarily fall into the category of "Founders' Original Intent".

But even if, for sake of argument, we grant Madison & Marshall may have uttered such words, in what evidence do we find that either ever intended to approve of disunion "at pleasure" or "for light and transient causes"?

I don't think they did, and thus my argument still stands.

rustbucket: "I've told you much of this before. So why do I respond now?"

Because, just as before, you misunderstand both my argument and some key facts of history, FRiend.
But I'm patient... ;-)