Madison, of course, was a party to the Virgina ratification which asserted the right to resume governance. As was Chief Justice Marshall. If they felt otherwise, they certainly got out voted by the people who ratified the Constitution. Madison had at first opposed the idea of the Bill of Rights. Madison later pushed for the Bill of Rights (and actually introduced in Congress his version) that Lincoln would later trash much of. Madison's version of what became the Tenth Amendment was, "The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively."
Madison was not consistent in his statements. You can cite some Madison statements against secession from his old age when the Constitution he helped create was in danger of failing. In turn I can cite his Virginia report of 1799:
Clear as the position must seem, that the federal powers are derived from the Constitution, and from that alone, the committee are not unapprised of a late doctrine, which opens another source of federal powers, not less extensive and important, than it is new and unexpected. The examination of this doctrine will be most conveniently connected with a review of a succeeding resolution. The committee satisfy themselves here with briefly remarking, that in all the cotemporary discussions and comments which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended, on the ground, that the powers not given to the government, were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment [rb: the 12th submitted but in the present day known as the Tenth Amendment], now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, "that the powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Where was the Federal Government given the right to use force to prevent secession? If you'll recall it was voted down in the Constitutional Convention. Here's Madison again:
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.
You mentioned Daniel Webster. But he also made this statement:
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Then there was Thomas Jefferson, of course, who said the new western states could secede if they wished, or words to that effect. And Chief Justice John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were part of the New York ratification convention that came up with these statements: NY ratifiers
But instead of negotiations, the South issued demands.
A demand? Like this statement to the President? Some demand.
Sir: -- We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the people of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment for the public debt and for a division of all the property held by the Government of the United States, of which South Carolina was recently a member, and generally to negotiate as to all other measures proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this Commonwealth and the Government at Washington."
And you keep exaggerating the existence of such offers.
See above.
Nothing on traffic on the Mississippi.
I've pointed out to you before the act of the Confederate Congress confirming that ship traffic on the Mississippi was to be free to come and go subject to nominal warfage fees, etc. The Governor and the Legislature of Mississippi essentially stated the same.
In short, I trust Clay and Webster and Jackson and Lincoln and most of all Madison over the opinions of unnamed people of those three states.
What elitism! The ratification delegates of those three states were the people who ratified the Constitution, not Clay, Webster, or Lincoln. Again, if Madison felt different about it at the ratification convention, he was either silent or was outvoted. According to your logic, Virginia could have saved the expense of a convention and turned the whole ratification over to Madison. Which, of course, they didn't do.
The New York times sources nothing. Yet we're to believe them and not the website?
The Times mentions the Seventh Regiment of New York as being in Washington. Here from a regimental history of the Seeventh Regiment New York State Militia, is the following statement [Source]:
April 19, 1861, the regiment, commanded by Col. Marshall Lefferts, left the State, en route to Washington, D. C., where it was mustered in the service of the United States for thirty days, April 26, 1861
The link you provided is not clear about where this regiment was on the date in question. My link is, and it is consistent with the Times article.
The Times mentions the Eighth Regiment Massachusetts being in Washington. According to its regimental history it was [Source]
April 20, 1861, the regiment was ordered to Washington, D. C, and commanded by Col. Geprge [sic] Lyons, left the State on the 23d; it was mustered in the service of the United States April 25, 1861, at Washington, to serve three months
Your link agrees.
The Times mentions the First Regiment Pennsylvania as being in Washington. Your site lists the First Defenders of Pennsylvania as being in Washington, but there were only 475 of them, not 1000. Lincoln shook their hands when they arrived. The First Regiment Pennsylvania (along with the Second Regiment Pennsylvania) retreated from the mess in Baltimore on the way to Washington and returned to Pennsylvania. The Times either confused the First Regiment with the First Defenders or was in error about the First Regiment.
Yes, I can cite quotes from Madison made after he had watched the Constitution in action for decades. And after he had watched people try and twist it. And that's why I believe those comments to be more credible.
Where was the Federal Government given the right to use force to prevent secession?
And I will point out to you that while Lincoln may not have believed in the legality of the Southern acts of secession, he also did not use force to prevent secession. Not until after the South resorted to force to further their aims.
But he also made this statement...
With the caveat "...and Congress provide no remedy..." Congress did provide the remedy through any number of fugitive slave legislation.
A demand? Like this statement to the President? Some demand.
No. Like this letter to President Lincoln (and not President Buchanan) saying the delegation was sent "For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States..." An end to secession wasn't on the table. The Southern position was the only position open for discussions. And had Lincoln agreed to surrender to this demand, then what? Any earlier suggestions that the South might actually be willing to pay for what they stole had been watered down to "...agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations..." Well, what if having surrendered to the first demand, Lincoln found out that paying for stolen property wasn't a topic interesting to the South? What then?
I've pointed out to you before the act of the Confederate Congress confirming that ship traffic on the Mississippi was to be free to come and go subject to nominal warfage fees, etc. The Governor and the Legislature of Mississippi essentially stated the same.
And in a stroke of a pen, the confederate congress could also state that ship traffic was NOT free to come and go on the Mississippi. What then? Topics as vital as navigation on the Mississippi or payment for property or settlement of debt should have been discussed before the South stole the property, repudiated the debt, and made it clear that they had the power to shut off access to the sea via the Mississippi and weren't shy about using it.
Your link agrees.
But it disagrees on the 69th New York, the 71st New York, 1st Pennsylvania, 3rd New York, 9th New York, and who knows about all those unnamed units in various states. It's accuracy is questionable.