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.
“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.”
“or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect”
What would qualify? Unfair Tariffs? Assuming powers not granted?
Non-Sequitur,
Yet, again, you defend Lincoln by using Madison?
Lincoln could not hold Madison's jock!
Lincoln was NO Madison nor Jefferson!Did Lincoln follow this line of thought? “Give me leave to say something of the nature of the government. . . .
Who are the parties to it? The people—not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.”
?????
Or Mr Madison in this Letter?
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 embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. (Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833)
Or this?
The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them. . . . (Federalist Paper Number 45)
Or this?
“The first question [how a state could secede without approval from the other states] is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. (Federalist Paper Number 43)
And yet another non sequitur from Non-Sequitur.
Yawn...
There is nothing [in the Constitution] 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.
Please see Article I, Section 2, Clause 2:
"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
Under your sorry substitute for rational thought, because the Constitution specifies requirements for the admission of an elected representative to Congress, the Constitution also 'implies' that the federal government can prevent (apparently under the threat of lethal, military force) the resignation of a representative from Congress.
Congratulations, on yet another non sequitur.
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?
If you are attempting to suggest that the Northern States proclaimed, in writing, in public, that their opposition to State secession was based upon Thomas Jefferson's view of State's rights, by all means please provide a citation.
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?
Fine - let's skip the writings (public or private) of James Madison. Where's your argument without them (i.e., his later, "confidential," entirely private writings)? You are still left with your admission that "[t]here is nothing [in the Constitution] that prohibits secession."
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.
Your argument is absolutely nonsensical - based on your reasoning (that the departure of a State from the union required the "approval" of "those leaving and those staying"), the first nine States to ratify the new Constitution were required to obtain the "approval" of the non-ratifying States to do so - where, precisely, was that requirement spelled out, in writing, in the Constitution? You might have an argument based on Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, but that specific requirement was blatantly ignored by the specific written terms of the Constitution, by those promoting the adoption of the new Constitution, and by the ratifying States.
Just a suggestion, but you might try to find an argument that is not self-contradictory (of course, you are our own, beloved "Non-Sequitur" ;>)...