Replies

"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

You are right he does not mince words he points out that there are two kinds of Secession
1. to secede at will-- to which he states -- being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged.
2. the right of seceding from intolerable oppression.--where he adds---is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

Is he not telling Webster that his speech has "But this dodges the blow by confounding" [the differences between the two] for Madison has written about the second kind "about which there is no theoretic controversy." And I am pretty damn sure he was not against the right of revolution.

Madison is not always consistent. In his old age he was rather defensive of the Constitution he helped create. When he was younger, he said the following:

It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal, superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the. parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.

And I am pretty damn sure he was not against the right of revolution.

Possibly not. But it's also clear that he would have classified the Southern actions as revolution and certainly understood the position of the federal government in trying to suppress it. He certainly would not have classified their actions as sanctioned by the Constitution.