Replies

rustbucket quoting, reportedly from Madison, 1788: "An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself (rustbucket: i.e., the ones who, like Madison, wanted to ratify the Constitution) which deserves to be attended to.
If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."

Others here have posted long lists of quotes (or alleged quotes) purporting to show that our Founders endorsed unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
None actually do that, all list conditions such as powers "perverted to... injury or oppression" or "necessity", all of which refer back to the Declaration of Independence listing of just what such words mean.

This reported quote from Madison seems to go a step closer to "at pleasure" secession, suggesting only "dissatisfaction" as the criteria to "renounce" national government.
So there are several things to note here:

The quote can't be found in a normal google search which means, at best, it's an obscure quote, at worst, fake.
Virginia's ratification statement does not reflect anything resembling an "at pleasure" secession, but says instead "withdrawal" will come when powers are "perverted to... injury or oppression."
President Madison himself prepared to invade New England in 1814 if the Hartford Convention declared secession.
In his letter to Trist, Madison clearly spells out his distinction between mutual consent and "at pleasure" secession:
So, bottom lines: we have one alleged Madison comment from Virginia's ratification convention, versus the actual language of Virginia's 1788 ratification, plus Madison's 1814 anti-secession actions and his full explanation regarding "at pleasure" to Trist in 1830.

I don't think this alleged quote overrules all the others.

BroJoeK said: Others here have posted long lists of quotes (or alleged quotes) purporting to show that our Founders endorsed unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure. None actually do that, all list conditions such as powers "perverted to... injury or oppression" or "necessity", all of which refer back to the Declaration of Independence listing of just what such words mean. This reported quote from Madison seems to go a step closer to "at pleasure" secession, suggesting only "dissatisfaction" as the criteria to "renounce" national government.

ah yes, Ye Olde adding of "conditions" gambit. There are several quotes from various Founding Fathers prior to ratification of the Constitution that all say it was a VOLUNTARY act...that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed....that each state is a separate sovereign community....they did not set out any specific list of conditions that had to be satisfied before exercising the right of secession - which all 13 colonies had just done 8 or so years prior when they seceded from the British Empire. They CERTAINLY did not say that anybody but each state itself had any right to sit in judgment as to whether those "conditions" were satisfied. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BroJoeK said: Virginia's ratification statement does not reflect anything resembling an "at pleasure" secession, but says instead "withdrawal" will come when powers are "perverted to... injury or oppression."

Here are the express reservations of the three states that made them. Note that these include the two main sectional leaders Virginia and New York and also note that under the Comity Principle EVERY state understood itself to have the same rights as every other state.

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of 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, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and AT THEIR WILL...."

"We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that EVERY power, jurisdiction, and right which is NOT by the said Constitution CLEARLY delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, REMAINS to the people of the SEVERAL States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, DO NOT IMPLY that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution."

"We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected... do declare and make known... that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is NOT by the said Constitution CLEARLY DELEGATED to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, REMAINS to the people of the SEVERAL States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; that Congress shall guarantee to EACH STATE its SOVEREIGNTY, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is NOT by this Constitution EXPRESSLY delegated to the United States."

Nobody at the time of ratification said this was a partial ratification of the constitution...that the ratification was thereby defective and was null and void. Everybody agreed such reservations were perfectly consistent with the constitution. Every state understood itself to have these rights and powers retained.

Did everybody see the part about "EXPRESSLY DELEGATED"? There was no implied grant of all sorts of extra powers to the federal government....such as the power to prevent secession. Nowhere did any of these states agree that anybody but each state had the power to prevent secession, that others had any sort of right to determine if conditions were met to allow such a thing. Each state in its sovereign capacity has the right to determine if the conditions are satisfied for itself. That is the only reasonable interpretation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BroJoeK said: In his letter to Trist, Madison clearly spells out his distinction between mutual consent and "at pleasure" secession: "...the compact being among individuals as imbodied 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."

What Madison or anybody else said AFTER ratification is irrelevant. He was not a party to the contract. The states and the federal governments were. What the states actually agreed to prior to/at the time of ratification is what matters. Nobody can legally alter a contract unilaterally after it has been signed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BroJoeK said: So, bottom lines: we have one alleged Madison comment from Virginia's ratification convention, versus the actual language of Virginia's 1788 ratification, plus Madison's 1814 anti-secession actions and his full explanation regarding "at pleasure" to Trist in 1830. I don't think this alleged quote overrules all the others.

Bottom line, we have Madison's and others comments in the federalist papers and elsewhere prior to ratification. We have the express provisos of 3 states at the time of ratification. We have no express delegation of power by the sovereign states to the newly created federal government that it would have the power to prevent any state from leaving what everybody understood to be a voluntary union based on consent.

Excellent fine on the Madison quote. Trying to compare the rebels in 1776 to the rebels in 1861 is tenuous at best. By the time the founders declared their independence what little voice they had in their government was ended. They had no representation or voice in England, and England had been conducting military operations against them for awhile. They rebelled to restore their rights as Englishman, not to perpetuate a system of chattel slavery for all time.

There was a discussion on this thread earlier about who was conservative and liberal in 1861. I would agree with you that the Republicans were the conservatives. For proof I offer this quote from the great George Washington in a letter to Mr. Mercer;
“It being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law.” - Letter to John Mercer, September 9, 1786
Most of the founding fathers understood that slavery was a contradiction to our declaration of independence and our Republic. They wished to see it eventually end, and thought they had put it on the road to extinction. The Republican party wanted to return slavery to the road of extinction, therefore conserving the original intent of our founding fathers.

BroJoeK commenting about the Madison quote from the 1788 Virginia Ratification Convention:

The quote can't be found in a normal google search which means, at best, it's an obscure quote, at worst, fake.

”fake”? Gee whiz, you know me better than that.

You need to work on your Google search skills. Maybe the following will help. I found it just now by a Google search on ' "observation fell" Madison '. I used the quotation marks around the phrase, observation fell, to search for that exact two-word phrase. I figured that phrase was a fairly unique part of the Madison quote. I threw in the word, Madison, to narrow the search to that two-word phrase associated with him. The third item that came up in the Google search was a book reference to the Madison quote>: Link.

That is not how I originally came across the Madison quote. Others had used it on these threads as early as 2003. Here is a post in my records of archived FR posts, this one by 4ConservativeJustices who shortened his FR handle to 4CJ: 4CJ posting the Madison quote. I’ve even posted it to you before: rustbucket posting Madison quote to BJK. Here is my post to you where I cited the pages in the Eliot Debates records of the 1788 Virginia Ratification Convention: Old post to BJK with page reference to quote, scroll down to find my two links to where the quote can be found in the Convention minutes.

BroJoeK: "alleged Madison comment"

Work on your memory too, BJK.