I'll ask you the question in reverse, what was it about South Carolina and the South in general becoming an independent sovereign nation that was so abhorrent to the North?
Madison is refering to a state being turned out of the union by the others.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.
The underlined clause is important. Madison states that a single party (a state) is released from it's bound of fidelity to the union when an intolerable abuse exists.
I have seen written that this means the state must revolt - I don't agree that the state must declare war upon the union in order to assert it's sovereignty - secession is, in effect, the same statement without hostilities.
That "war" is the likely outcome of such a declaration is obvious. It is also obvious that the founders abhored the idea.
And secession is what? Breaking free and forming a new government!
I ask you, what act did the Lincoln administration do in it's first month that was so oppressive as to the people needing to break free?
I have a hunch that the causes of the the south's anxieties lie a bit further back than Lincoln ...
The only thing the Republican party was for was not extending slavery to new states and territories. Was that so oppressive to the Southern states?
IMHO - and based soley on that statement! - no. But as I already stated, the causes had much deeper roots. You yourself have repeatedly told me to read post 78 - I have read and reread it. Have you stopped to ask yourself WHY SC was discussing secession in 1832? (I don't know myself, but obviously it had nothing to do with Lincoln or the Republicans.)
Post 78 describes Madison's view on this. He was the main writer of the constitution
Actually that was Gouvernour Morris, head of the committee on style.
Madison's reputation as the "father of the constitution" comes entirely from his copious note taking and his vocal advocacy of ratification. Otherwise there is nothing which especially commends his word over the other participants in those debates.
In fact, Madison's early record as a constitutional authority is pretty spotty. In 1794 he attempted to organize a Supreme Court challenge to a new federal excise tax on carriages, after months of railing against its alleged unconstitutionality before the House. The court slapped him down unanimously, as it should have - excise taxes are plainly within the powers of Congress, Madison's claim otherwise notwithstanding.