Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exmarine
Really? You mean Madison? I would like to see the full text because I have just read the "Christian History of the Constitution" by Verna M. Hall, a compilation of many writings from that period, and in all I read, union is always voluntary...

At your service.

CHAPTER 3 | Document 14

James Madison to Daniel Webster15 Mar. 1833Writings 9:604--5

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. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.

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 imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.

The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.

The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.

--------------------------------------------------------

Entering the military is a voluntary action, but it is usually not a good idea to just walk away whenever you damn well feel like it. That can get your ass shot.

Yes, joining the Union was voluntary, but it was a nation, not a frigging social club. If states could walk for any cause, or no cause, the Union was meaningless. Washington, Madison, Hamilton and the others spent months creating a Federal Union, not a Elks Lodge. Unilateral secession makes as much sense as allowing soldiers to just come and go whenever they please.

161 posted on 01/15/2004 3:11:05 PM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies ]


To: Ditto
Yes, joining the Union was voluntary, but it was a nation, not a frigging social club. If states could walk for any cause, or no cause, the Union was meaningless. Washington, Madison, Hamilton and the others spent months creating a Federal Union, not a Elks Lodge. Unilateral secession makes as much sense as allowing soldiers to just come and go whenever they please.

You make a strong point. So, fine, then, the same logic and principles could then be applied to the American Revolution. What business did the founders have to sever their ties to mother England? Why is the authority to sever ties with Britain valid, but not the authority for the south to sever ties with the Union? Forced Union carries with it a diminishment of liberty. I will look up some quotes from the founding era that support this noble concept and pass them to you tomorrow.

That being said, Madison does appear to oppose any secession here except by severe oppression (which did not apply in 1861). However, there is no codified law that supports forced union, and it does militate against judeo-Christian principles of government - no doubt about it. It is not within the Constitution itself. We are a nation of laws not men, men do not have arbitrary authority - not even Madison. If they intended that the Constitution be involuntary, that was not even remotely hinted in the document itself. We know what the founders meant by their wording in the Bill of Rights. Why was no one tried for treason if the rebellion was illegal?

Let us remember that the States were self-governing entities and people were loyal to their States, not the Federal Govt. at that time.

166 posted on 01/15/2004 3:31:44 PM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson