Replies

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."

These are interesting points, but the fact is that the Constitution was only the form of government, not the admission into the Union.

The Founding Document of the United States was the Declaration of Independence, where the states "mutually pledge[d] to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." This is an unbreakable pledge between the several states to each other.

Rejecting the Constitution as the form of government does not mean they leave the Union. It means, as Madison later wrote, that they return to the state of nature that existed before the Constitution, but not before Independence. We can debate what that is, but the simplest (and least disruptive) is that they become territories with their own local governments -- but still possessions of the United States.

-PJ

Madison wrote many years after the ratification of the Constitution that states do not have the right to unilaterally secede.

Actually, what Madison was referring to in his letters to Rivas (or Rives) as well as among several others wasn't the Constitution itself, but a theoretical essay concerning the Constitution written by Rivas and sent to Madison.

Rivas, who apparently had aspirations on becoming a newspaperman, also sent them to a local paper, where they published them under the nom de plume - A Friend of Union & State Rights.

Nor did Madison publicly reply to this writing. He wrote to Rivas directly, and against Madison's express wishes, Rivas then sent the letter to the paper himself.

From the Charlottesville (Va.) Review
In 1832, Mr. ALEXANDER RIVES, over the signature of "A Friend of Union and State Rights," published two communications in the Virginia (Charlottesville) Advocate. The letter of Mr. MADISON was called forth by these articles, and was addressed to the writer of them under his nom de plums. It bears no date, but a letter from Mr. RIVES, in reply to it, in our possession, is dated Jan. 7, 1833.

Even though the letter contains multiple caveats, it's still used as some kind of 'proof' about how Madison felt about unilateral succession. A reading of the closing paragraph shows the discussion was never meant for public consumption-

Having many reasons for marking this letter Confidential I must request that its publicity may not be permitted in any mode or thro’ any channel. Among the reasons is the risk of misapprehensions or misconstructions, so common without more attention & more development, than I could conveniently bestow on what is said.
James Madison to Alexander Rivas, Jan, 1833.