You quote Federalist 58 entirely out of context – as usual. The section in question dealt with requirements for a quorum in the House of Representatives, not the secession of States from the union. After all, State secession can hardly have occurred “in States,” now could it? You should be looking in Federalist 43, which details Mr. Madison’s views regarding the proposed secession of the ratifying States from the so-called ‘perpetual union’ formed under the Articles of Confederation:
”...(I)t may be observed that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncanceled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other.”
Note the recommendation regarding “moderation...and prudence.” What was your quote from the Illinois State Journal? “The revenues must and will be collected at her ports, and any resistance on her part will lead to war.” How nice: “any resistance...will lead to war.” Hardly a course anyone would consider exemplary of “moderation...and prudence.” It would seem the bloodthirsty people of Illinois were unfamiliar with the Federalist Papers as well.
By the way, thanks for the documentation suggesting that the people of Illinois, at least, considered any interruption in the collection of tariffs to be grounds for war. I’m surprised, friend Walt: you have always insisted that tariffs were not an issue.
;>)
In fact, as I recall, [Mr. Madison] was not alive in 1860.
What are you suggesting – that at any given time, the specific written words of the United States Constitution mean only what some unspecified portion of living Americans think they mean? What an eccentric notion! Thomas Jefferson was “not alive in 1860,” but that hardly altered the meaning of his Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, or his 1825 Declaration and Protest on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of Them. But then, you always did seem to have difficulty with the concept of written words having specific meanings.
;>)
You dodged a straight question. I'll posit it again. Maybe you just misunderstood...
Who was right?
Actually, Mr. Madison answered the question quite clearly:
“A union of the States containing such an ingredient [as the use of force against a State] seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound...”
“Maybe you just misunderstood:” the Illinois State Journal was obviously not “right” to propose (in Mr. Madison’s words) “(t)he use of force agst. a State.” As the events following Mr. Lincoln’s call for troops make undeniably clear, such a use of force did indeed “look more like a declaration of war” to nearly half of the Southern States – and those States responded to federal military action by seceding from the union, dissolving “all previous compacts by which [they] might be bound...”
But perhaps you were simply referring to some twisted concept of “right” supposedly conferred by superior military force? Hmm?
;>)
Here's what gives the Constitution its power...
The passage (not surprisingly) makes absolutely no mention of the Constitution. Perhaps you really are suggesting that superior military force determines what is “right”...
The Constitution is just words on paper.
Allow me to refer you (once again) to the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
Thomas Jefferson to W. Nicholas, 1803
Quite obviously, my friend, you prefer a “blank paper” to the rule of law. No wonder you voted for William Jefferson Clinton...
Actually, Mr. Madison answered the question quite clearly:
Madison was dead in 1860.
But there were enough "living, patriotic men" -- better than gold, as President Lincoln said, to preserve the Union -- it was never dissolved.
All you have to dispute what those men accomplished is sophistry.
Walt
"...Whether the President, in fulfilling his duties as Commander-in-chief in suppressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile resistance and a civil war of such alarming proportions as will compel him to accord to them the character of belligerents is a question to be decided by him, and this Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted. "He must determine what degree of force the crisis demands." The proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the Court that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized a recourse to such a measure under the circumstances peculiar to the case."
It's you who ignores the rule of law.
Walt