Replies

My own take: States had the right to leave the union as an implicit principal of the nation’s founding. It was not treason to leave the union. It was treason, against the founding principals, to force states to remain against the wishes of their citizens.

James Madison says otherwise. Madison said that people were both citizens of their state and citizens of the United States, and that a state government does not have the authority to strip its citizens of their citizenship in the United States.

Still, this comes down to one man's opinion, but he was the authority on the intent and meaning of the Constitution.

On March 15, 1833, James Madison wrote a letter to Daniel Webster:

Madison's argument here is that when the states ratified the Constitution, that conferred United States citizenship on the citizens of the several states with all the rights and powers laid out in the Constitution.
Madison:
It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.
Madison asserts that once given, a governor or legislature does not have the right to strip its state citizens of their citizenship in the United States.
Madison:
The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact.
In other words, the citizens of the several states are also citizens of the United States via the compact of the Constitution that was "ordained and established..." by "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union." Madison says that as long as the Constitution itself remains operative, it applies to all the citizens of the United States regardless of their state of residence and the status of that state.

Madison previously wrote that allowing a state to secede implicitly gives the others states the power to kick out an offending state, which cannot be allowed.

Madison wrote about secession in a letter ca. 1832 to Mr. Alexander Rives, who later published it in the Virginia (Charlottesville) Advocate in 1833: LETTER FROM MR. MADISON ON THE RIGHT OF SECESSION:

Madison argues that the ratification of the Constitution was a compact between the states, and as such, each state has equal say in all matters. When one state declares itself to secede unilaterally, it says that its own decision is elevated above all the rest.
Madison:
The case of a claim in a State to secede from its union with the others, is a question among the States themselves as parties to a compact...
It surely does not follow, from the fact of the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having as parties to the Constitutional compact no tribunal above them, that, in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest; and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether from its compact with the rest.
Madison then suggests that if a state declares its own desire supreme over the others, then that right extends to all the other states too. That means that if a state has a right to secede from the others, then the others have the right to secede from it. In other words, a body of states has the right to oust a state against its wishes, which is a dangerous precedent.
Madison:
The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain. An inference from the doctrine that a single State has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them.

Although Texas reserving the right to leave suggests that leaving the Union...

I think this is an urban legend not borne out by facts. A review of the Texas Annexation Founding Documents contains no mention of retaining a right to secede and return to independent nation status. It did, however, have the right to split into four smaller states.

-PJ

True. Madison wrote many years after the ratification of the Constitution that states do not have the right to unilaterally secede. That, however is not what he said prior to ratification of the constitution. Indeed he stressed again and again in the federalist papers that states were sovereign and were delegating only a small portion of their powers to the proposed federal government.

Of course, it is not the interpretation of one man - even if he wrote much of the constitution - that matters. What matters is what the legislatures of the states agreed to when they ratified the constitution. As with any contract, it is about what the parties to that contract agreed to. Here is what the state legislatures thought:

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of 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...."

"We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution."

"We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected... do declare and make known... that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; that Congress shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States."

Still, this comes down to one man's opinion, but he was the authority on the intent and meaning of the Constitution.

James Madison talks out both sides of his mouth. His actions contradict his own statements.

James Madison was on the Virginia committee which created Virginia's ratification statement, which explicitly says that Virginia has a right to leave the Union if it perceives the government as being oppressive to the people of Virginia.

If James Madison disagreed that Virginia had a right to leave the Union, he should have made that opinion known to the Virginia legislature instead of later claiming that Virginia did not have the right to leave.

Perhaps he did and they didn't agree? In such a case, Madison is but a single man, with the actual authority resting in the body of the Legislature. It is what *THEY* say which determines legal legitimacy, not what Madison says or said.

As for evidence on the other side, there are THREE US States that specifically articulate a right to recall their powers from the Federal government. They are New York, Virginia and Rhode Island.

This is in black and white and represents the will of the legislative bodies of those states. It's not an opinion such as Mr. Madison has, it is the word of authority from the recognized lawful ruling body of their respective states.

Additionally, the Declaration of Independence absolutely articulates a right to secede. It declares it a right given by God and one that cannot be take away from the people.

In contrast, the US Constitution says absolutely nothing which claims that states cannot leave. It is utterly silent on the topic and with good reason. It was only 11 years earlier that the entire nation and all it's legislatures declared that Independence is a *RIGHT* and you cannot take it away.

Furthermore, Massachusetts and Connecticut both asserted a right to secede during the Hartford convention of 1814. This was only 27 years after the constitutional convention and many of the original framers were still alive. They did not object to the claims of Massachusetts or Connecticut.

There is other evidence, but this is all I wish to put forth off the top of my head, and what do you have to support your side?

Two statements by Madison, both contradicting what he did in 1788 (Virginia ratification committee and convention) and one made 40 years after the fact.

That is not much to hang your argument on. What i've put forth is better evidence, and more authoritative.