Wasn't Taylor more correct than the Federalists, his philosophical opponents with respect to the Constitution, essentially violated the First Amendment with their application of the Sedition Act? Freedom of the press is certainly a constitutional principle protected by the First Amendment.
During ratification, Federalists such as James Wilson had been arguing that a Bill of Rights was not needed. As Wilson said, “… the liberty of the press, which has been a copious source of declamation and opposition -- what control can proceed from the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom?” But once in power, Federalists passed the Sedition Act which they then used to arrest and prosecute opposition newspaper editors despite the First Amendment.
Taylor introduced and defended Madison's Virginia Resolutions of 1798 in the Virginia legislature. The resolutions were known in the minutes of the debate that ensued in the legislature as "John Taylor’s resolutions." From those resolutions:
That this State having by its convention which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States," and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other States recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.
I don't have an argument with what Madison said. But his words don't make an argument for state sovereignty, but for the rights of the people. And I don't think you could argue that a "right" to break with the Constitution simply for a whim existed. Madison certainly didn't think so when the question came up later.
As I remember, Madison's submitted version of what eventually became the Tenth Amendment did not include "the people."
Both Madison and Taylor said states could resume the powers they delegated to the central government. Madison thought they couldn’t do it on a whim. New York and Rhode Island said they could do it if it made them happier. Despite many bitter disputes among states, none seceded during the 70-odd years before South Carolina did.
South Carolina did not secede on a whim. Some Northern states had been nullifying the Constitution over the return of fugitive slaves for many years . See Link 1. A number of the quotes on that old post of mine are corroborated in Harper’s Weekly. Also, over half of the Republican congressmen endorsed Helper’s book, which swore the Republican Party’s intent to end slavery so help them God (Link 2). Slavery, of course, was the mainstay of the Southern economy.
Taylor wasn't really concerned with the words of the Constitution or with the way it worked in practice. He was imposing a something like a geometrical proof on the Constitution, looking for a center of absolute sovereignty in a system where sovereignty is limited and conflicting authorities are checked by and balanced against each other.
Taylor pointed out problems with the positions/discussions of Hamilton and Madison about the Constitution, and he feared that in practice the Constitution will lead to a national government rather than a federal one with no effective restraint on the power of the central government. This despite the fact that the Constitutional Convention voted for a federal rather than a national government. In a sense we are contending nowadays with the problem Taylor foresaw. The federal government has grown into a monster, and the states and people have had limited success in restraining it.
From New Views of the Constitution by John Taylor:
Mr. Hamilton prefers the control of the people over legislatures to the control of a court; Mr. Madison prefers the control of the court to the control of the people; but both reject the mutual check or control between the independent state and federal spheres, for which both had positively contended whilst construing the constitution. Which ought to have most weight, their constructions, mingled, or unmingled, with their prepossessions in the convention? …
The national government cannot abridge a concurrent nor an exclusive power, but it may abridge both, by a supreme power to decide exclusively upon the constitutionality of its own laws. Mr. Hamilton has ably proved, that the solitary control of the people was insufficient for the preservation of liberty; and that the additional mutual control of the two governments, was essential to prevent a tyrannical concentration of power in one; yet his dictum surrenders this essential control. It must either exist or not. If it does not exist, no effectual or constitutional mode of resisting federal encroachments remains in the states, separately, and a majority may usurp any powers whatsoever, over a minority of states, by the concurrence of a majority of the people; the assertions that the people alone are insufficient to control political departments, and that such departments must mutually control each other, are both revoked; and the federal, is converted into the national form of government proposed by Mr. Hamilton.
If you're looking for absolute sovereignty in a system you'll probably find it somewhere simply because you think it has to be there, but that doesn't mean it is there or that other observers will agree with you.
Madison seemed to think that the people could take back what the powers had delegated to the government given sufficient provocation. That is consistent with the theory that sovereignty resides in the people. Taylor also supports that. From New View again:
Mr. Hamilton invests the state governments with complete sovereignty. Why does he abandon our principle that complete sovereignty resides only in the people of each state? The reasons are obvious. His prepossession in favor of the English form of government, induced him to deposit a complete sovereignty in government.
Here's a piece of trivia. John Taylor became an orphan at the age of ten, and was adopted by his maternal uncle, Edmund Pendleton, who later becane the president of the Virginia Ratification Convention. Taylor studied law under Pendleton. Taylor was named three times to serve the remainder of terms in the US Senate. He accepted those, but he turned down an appointment to be a senator for a full term.
But could states simply nullify whatever Federal laws they thought were unconstitutional? Working through elections and the Congress itself or through the courts were better ways to change things than nullification or secession. And indeed, change did come at the ballot box and those alwas were repealed.
As I remember, Madison's submitted version of what eventually became the Tenth Amendment did not include "the people."
One clause of the Articles of Confederation read: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." The 10th Amendment adds the people and removes the references to sovereignty and independence of the states as well as the word "expressly." These were all highly significant changes that show how far the country had come from the Articles of Confederation's understanding of federalism.
South Carolina did not secede on a whim.
That was bound to be a matter of serious contention. People still disagree about it. It was something the courts should have settled, or better still, Congress should have taken up the matter.
Slavery, of course, was the mainstay of the Southern economy.
And Lincoln had pledged not to do anything about slavery where it existed. Therefore, his election was not in itself the kind of provocation that the secessionists claimed it was.
Madison seemed to think that the people could take back what the powers had delegated to the government given sufficient provocation.
But what is sufficient provocation? And who is to be the judge? Look at Madison's 1833 letters to Webster and Rives. The right to secede justified by intolerable oppression is something very close to if not identical to the right to revolution. It's liable to have the consequences of a revolution. If you're not confronted with that kind of provocation it's best to work within the system to achieve your goals, even if your goal is withdrawing from the system. For Madison you can't get out just because you want to just by declaring yourself to be out.
But what's the point of all this? Secession was an experiment and it failed. The reason why it failed -- apart from superior military force -- was because there was no agreement about the rights and wrongs and procedures involved. It's not so much that force decided the question; it's that both sides resorted to force because there was no clear and undisputed answer at the time. To argue that there was -- that there was a right to secession recognized by all, except Lincoln and his friends -- is simply to be dishonest.