N-S: I did not say secession was illegal. I said unilateral secession was. You should not misquote me.
I was not quoting you - your statement is a non sequitur. And I can not help but note that you have completely failed to cite any specific clause of the United States Constitution that prohibited State secession (or even "unilateral" State secession).
How nice.
An 1833 letter to Alexander Rives. Link.
Actually, the quotation you posted varies from the citation you provided (punctuation), suggesting that you actually obtained the material from a different source. No big deal (I'm sure there are multiple sources). However, I have to thank you for the context that you neglected to provide:
"I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-99 as countenancing the doctrine that a State may at will secede from its constitutional compact with the other states. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligation imposed by it..."
Several (if not all) of the Southern States cited an abuse of the [constitutional] compact, when they seceded from the union. They therefore actually met the requirements specified by Mr. Madison.
Which (obviously) raises an additional question - who (or what) was to determine when "an abuse of the compact" had occurred?
Mr. Madison (in the same citation you provided) declares the following:
"...it was asserted against Virginia [following the publication of the 'Virginia Resolutions'], that the states had no right to interpose legislative declarations of opinion on a constitutional point; nor a right to interpose at all against a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was to be regarded as a tribunal from which there could be no appeal.
"The object of Virginia was to ... interpose against the [unconstitutional] decisions of the [federal] judicial as well as the other branches of the [federal] Government [i.e., abuses of the compact, as determined by the State] — the authority of the [federal] judicial being in no sense ultimate, out of the purview and form of the Constitution."
That is entirely in keeping with Mr. Madison's repeated suggestions, in his Virginia Resolutions and his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (links at my FR homepage), that the States (as parties to the compact) retained the right to judge regarding the constitutionality of federal actions ('abuses of the compact').
Mr. Jefferson agreed, as noted in his Kentucky Resolutions:
"...[E]ach [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
Thanks for the citation!
;>)
Another quote from your citation:
"Having many reasons for marking this letter confidential, I must request that its publicity may not be permitted in any mode or through any channel."
As noted, I generally prefer Mr. Madison's public writings (based upon which, in more than a minor part, the Constitution was ratified). You obviously prefer his "confidential" correspondence, written long after he sold the Constitution to the people of the ratifying States (and never intended for publication)...
;>)
WIJG: Mr. Madison addressed the issue of State secession (specifically, the secession of States from a self-proclaimed "perpetual" union) in Federalist No. 43...
N-S: And nowhere in there does Madison state that the state may leave unilaterally. Unlike Webster or Clay, or even Lincoln and Buchanan, Madison did not believe that once in the Union a state could never leave under any circumstances. But he did understand, even if you do not, that the Constitution protects all states equally and doesn't grant one state any more rights or any more protections than another state enjoys. A proper ending of the compact requires the consent of all the impacted parties. Only then are the interests and rights of all the parties protected, those leaving and those staying.
Absolute bull crap. "[T]he compact requires the consent of all the impacted parties?" If that were the case, Mr. Madison would never have promoted the establishment of the new Constitution, which required only the ratification of nine of thirteen States (see Article VII - "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.") According to you, "a proper ending of the compact requires the consent of all the impacted parties," as was required, in fact, by Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation - which James Madison blatantly ignored, because 'he did understand, even if you do not, that neither the Constitution nor the Articles prohibited State secession'...
Only one state ever seceded unilaterally, South Carolina. All seceding states after that had at least one other state in support. The last had 10 other states with them. Hardly unilateral. Look up the definition some time.
And a comedian as well. Don't quit your day job.
And I can not help but note that you have completely failed to cite any specific clause of the United States Constitution that prohibited State secession (or even "unilateral" State secession).
There is nothing that prohibits secession. But Article IV says that a state can be admitted only with consent of the other states, as expressed through a vote in Congress. Once allowed to join, Article IV and Article I say that a state cannot partition or join with another state without approval of Congress and cannot change their border by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Implied in this is the need to obtain the approval of the other states when leaving as well.
Several (if not all) of the Southern States cited an abuse of the [constitutional] compact, when they seceded from the union. They therefore actually met the requirements specified by Mr. Madison.
Then you should have read further. "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 between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights 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 bargains." Likewise, in an earlier 1830 letter to Nicholas Trist, Madison stated the same:
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure.
It is indeed inseparable from the nature of a compact, that there is as much right on one side to expound it & to insist on its fulfilment according to that exposition, as there is on the other so to expound it as to furnish a release from it, and that an attempt to annul it by one of the parties, may present to the other, an option of acquiescing in the annulment, or of preventing it as the one or the other course may be deemed the lesser evil."
So you say that the Southern states claimed the compact was violated, and this gave them the right to leave. The Northern states say it was not, and their leaving was illegal. What made the Southern states right and the Northern states wrong?
As noted, I generally prefer Mr. Madison's public writings (based upon which, in more than a minor part, the Constitution was ratified). You obviously prefer his "confidential" correspondence, written long after he sold the Constitution to the people of the ratifying States (and never intended for publication).
So why should we believe his public writings express his true beliefs since you seem to believe he was merely trying to peddle the Constitution to a skeptical population? And I'll point out that his later writings were written with the benefit of watching his creation in action for 40 years, and observing how people might twist it and corrupt it for their own purposes. I would suggest that his later writings are an accurate view of how he felt and what he believed. And nothing in them specifically contradicts his earlier positions to begin with.
"[T]he compact requires the consent of all the impacted parties?"
You misunderstand me. By all the impacted parties I meant both sides of the equation, those leaving and those staying. I did not mean to imply that unanimous approval of all states would be needed. Madison had no use for the unanimous consent provisions in the Articles of Confederation, and wasn't shy about saying so. So I do not believe unanimous agreement is needed. I don't even think that even a super majority would be needed. Madison said, "Consent of the others..." I read that to be a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress, the same that is needed to allow states to join in the first place.