Funny how James Madison disagrees with your interpertation of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, which he had more than little to do with creating. Amazing how you know more than him about the topic. Maybe Madison was like me... didn't have a clue what he was talking about.
"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."James Madison, 15 Mar. 1833
Then there is this from a fellow who was around when secession was actually taking place.
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."I quess he didn't have a clue either.Robert E. Lee, January 23, 1861
Anyways, my commentary dealt with a literal interpretation in the day when Federalism was hotly debated and feared because it established a central authority and required the states be bound by union and pledge. The states feared, and rightly so, of having to give up their sovereignty in any capacity. The Federalist essays and the debates made it clear that argument was sensitive and nonexistent to bring up the idea of a “perpetual union’ that you cannot divorce from at will or whim.
Madison never argued in the Federalist Essays for a perpetual union but a union bound by pledge. Indeed that would have surely killed the fledgling new Constitution for a United States. “....Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own VOLUNTARY ACT. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
Regarding James Madison... Madison wrote to express his appreciation of a speech he felt was a passionate plea AGAINST such actions by a state which had a RIGHT to succeed either at-will or thru rapid revolution for whatever the reason. No where in the convention debate or Federalist papers is succession argued but only mentioned to be less of a concern amongst the several states because of improved “science of politics” which helped improve or cured against quitting the union on a petty whim or by revolution.
Madison says in that response:
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."
So basically Madison is saying that you can’t quit the club because you made a good-faith pledge to honor the compact. That is a hindsight comment which was purely made from emotion and a passion to perpetuate the union and its members saying that each state made a good-faith pledge to be honored and not to be taken willy-nilly.
Yes, I would agree with Madison’s sediment in spirit and intent. If I worked my ass off arguing with delegates for a new constitution that I felt passionate for in its design and function... I TOO would not want it vulnerable to the slightest breeze of revolt or dissatisfaction and sell it every day screaming “WE MUST SAVE THE UNION!”, but again... NO-WHERE in the debates or Federalist papers is there an argument that binds a states pledge in perpetuity. The union is an object of the states NOT the general government or the constitution. The ratification of the Constitution was a FEDERAL ACT as well as the establishment of the constitution being FEDERAL in form.
Ok, so Lee made a personal emotional interpretation of which none of it is grounded in reality or historical debate. That’s just his “WE MUST SAVE THE UNION!” speech.
Lee pretty much was clueless what he said about the Constitution having had established a perpetual union when it did not. The Constitution IS A COMPACT between the states which AUTHORIZES the general government. Again.... The states are sovereign and are bound together as a union of separate nation states by VOLUNTARY ACT. The Federal Government exists to preserve and protect the sovereignty of the states and their governments and CANNOT interfere with state affairs or its people! The Federal Government exists by authority of the States and continues ONLY at the discretion of the states!
No where in the Constitution does it say YOU CANT LEAVE. If that were the case why do we have a national senate, state borders, state sovereignty and state constitutions? Gee-wiz, I mean this is for ever right?? Because if you try to leave the Fed is going to wage war on you, conquer you and annex you back! So once you join who needs borders or sovereign state governments with constitutions and a legislature. Why don’t we just dissolve the state borders into one big happy NATION, install a puppet senate (call us a Republic in name only, a RINO America) and have a make-believe republic just like the Romans did? Have the senate exist only to appease the people and to make the people feel they matter in DC. We should even install a petty tyrant dictator that can flip off the silly puppet senate and rule by edict anyway?
Oh wait!! We already have that!!