Care to cite any of his public writings? Of course not. You wouldn't want to quote anything the gentleman said in public.
As you correctly note, Mr. Madison may well have been "the man who, more than any other single individual, was responsible for creating the document in the first place." And when he was selling "the document" to the American people, prior to ratification, he noted, in writing, in public, that the States would be justified in using military force (State militia) to oppose the new federal government by force, if the States thought it appropriate to oppose unconstitutional federal actions in that manner.
You can find it in The Federalist Papers. I've quoted the passage to you before. Apparently you have a short memory...
Now, if what you actually meant was "I am John Freakin' Galt and my interpretation of the Constitution is the only correct one. Bow down before me, you lesser mortals.." then you should have come out and said it. Maybe we can find you a football stadium somewhere, put up some Greek columns, and then you can display your mighty ego for all?
(Maybe your memory isn't so short - you seem to be carrying some kind of grudge... ;>)
Let me spell it out for you, one more time. The Constitution is written law. It means precisely what it says; nothing more, nothing less. Other documents from the same period support that interpretation. No where does the Constitution (as it existed in 1860-61) prohibit State secession. You disagree - which (IMHO) ranks you with the 'Roe v. Wade' types and their mysterious 'right of privacy,' and every other extreme liberal who seeks to 'amend' the Constitution via 'interpretation.'
Congratulations...
I'll be glad to quote his writings.
You can find it in The Federalist Papers. I've quoted the passage to you before. Apparently you have a short memory...
Can you quote the passage from the Federalist Papers where Madison clearly states that unilateral secession is allowed? Or where he outlines the process for secession at all?
The question of whether secession is allowed or not isn't the issue. I agree that the Constitution does not prohibit it so there is no reason why it should not be allowed. The question is how secession is to take place. You take the position that only the leaving states had any rights that needed to be respected or any say in the matter. Madison disagrees. He clearly states in his letters that secession requires the consent of all the parties affected. His view that all states are equal parties to the Constitution seems contrary to your Orwellian view that some states are more equal than others. And I'll accept Madison's interpretation over your's, for the obvious reasons.
Now, if you have other documents from the period that seem to specifically support the concept of unilateral secession then by all means, trot them out.
You disagree - which (IMHO) ranks you with the 'Roe v. Wade' types and their mysterious 'right of privacy,' and every other extreme liberal who seeks to 'amend' the Constitution via 'interpretation.'
Your not-so-humble opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, you would be incorrect.