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

To: BroJoeK
Sure, anyone can carefully select a quote from Madison or another founder, but there are as many or more other quotes saying legitimate secession can only be by mutual consent, or in the event of "usurpations" and "abuses" of Federal power. Secession was not legitimate "at pleasure."

I'd appreciate any quotes you might have of his (with attribution) that says seccession would have to be mutually agreed.  From my readings, that's not what be or almost any other founder would have agreed to. From my readings, had that been the expectation, there would never have been a "united States".

81 posted on 11/04/2010 8:13:05 AM PDT by zeugma (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: zeugma
"...I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." -- James Madison to Alexander Rives, 1832

"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 to Daniel Webster, 1833

"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?" -- James Madison to William Rives, 1833

84 posted on 11/04/2010 8:22:16 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]

To: zeugma
"...I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." -- James Madison to Alexander Rives, 1832

"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 to Daniel Webster, 1833

"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?" -- James Madison to William Rives, 1833

85 posted on 11/04/2010 8:22:30 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]

To: zeugma
zeugma: "I'd appreciate any quotes you might have of his (with attribution) that says seccession would have to be mutually agreed.
From my readings, that's not what be or almost any other founder would have agreed to.
From my readings, had that been the expectation, there would never have been a "united States"."

Thanks for asking. These and similar quotes have been posted in the past:

We begin with the Articles of Confederation, which do specifically use the term "perpetual Union".
In the Constitution, "perpetual Union" is replaced by the phrase "a more perfect Union."
So, in what way is "a more perfect Union" not also "perpetual"?

New York, Rhode Island and Virginia attempted to ratify the Constitution conditionally -- according to their ratification statements.
But James Madison would have none of that, writing to his friend, Alexander Hamilton about New York's conditions he said:

"My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan.

Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved.
The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States"

Virginia did include a ratification statement, but note carefully what it said:

"the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."

Madison himself made the same point in 1830:

"the compact being among individuals as embodied 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."

And yet, there were no "usurpations" or "abuses" in 1860 -- indeed just the opposite.

In their secession documents, the Deep South did not complain about Federal "usurpations", but rather about the failure of the Federal government to enforce Fugitive Slave laws in non-slave states.

So the Deep South's secession was not by "mutual consent," nor due to "usurpations" or "abuses."
Rather secession was "at pleasure" -- meaning unconstitutional and illegal.

And when the South began shooting at Union forces, that made it an "insurrection" and "rebellion" -- which the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to defeat.

130 posted on 11/04/2010 11:03:39 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | 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