James Madison on Secession

 

James Madison in his old age lived through the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833.  He was against nullification and secession, which he saw lurking clearly in the background of the Crisis.  As the author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which contended that Congress had no power to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison had his own words thrown back at him, and he took pains in his letters to explain the differences between his Virginia Resolution and the revolution South Carolina was attempting to initiate.  I find his words on secession to be of great interest in light of the battle over the right to secede fought after Madison was long in his grave.  Here is a letter to Nicholas Trist on December 23, 1832 in which Madison makes his position clear.

TO N. P. TRIST. … MAD. MSS.

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.

Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the “rights” &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.

I know nothing of what is passing at Richmond, more than what is seen in the newspapers. You were right in your foresight of the effect of the passages in the late Proclamation. They have proved a leaven for much fermentation there, and created an alarm against the danger of consolidation, balancing that of disunion. I wish with you the Legislature may not seriously injure itself by assuming the high character of mediator. They will certainly do so if they forget that their real influence will be in the inverse ratio of a boastful interposition of it.

If you can fix, and will name the day of your arrival at Orange Court House, we will have a horse there for you; and if you have more baggage than can be otherwise brought than on wheels, we will send such a vehicle for it. Such is the state of the roads produced by the wagons hurrying flour to market, that it may be impossible to send our carriage which would answer both purposes.

About these ads
Published in: on February 26, 2010 at 6:44 am  Comments (9)  
Tags: , ,

9 Comments

  1. Thanks for posting this, Don. It never ceases to amaze me that certain individuals can claim that secession is perfect constitutional when the “Father” of the Constitution (an inaccurate yet apt) term unreservedly bats down the idea.

  2. Thank you Paul. People tend to forget that prior to the secession crisis of 1860 just how extreme a pro-secession view was. Even those who thought it might be constitutional were, outside of a few Fire-eaters, against it in practice. Following the Civil War defenders of the Confederacy have vehemently defended secession, but prior to the Civil War it was a distinctly minority view.

  3. [...] would not need to secede from the union it had created.In another letter to journalist and diplomat Nicholas Trist on the same subject in 1833, Madison wrote: "The essential difference between a free [...]

  4. [...] has also linked to another letter written by Madison that crushes the idea that secession is constitutionally [...]

  5. No right to seceed?
    One of us needs to read.

    As Madison states IN THIS LETTER:

    “The [States], owe fidelity to it (the Constitution), till released by consent (thats one good way), or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.”

    See that litle word “til” in there? That means “until” meaning condtioned upon something that Madison then discribes.

    Seems pretty plain to me.

    And that is not even mentioning the 10th Amendement which says “if its not mentioned in the Consitution then it is reserved to the states.”

    So where is secession mentioned?
    Answer: No where.
    So it is then reserved to the States.

    Sorry Statists, neocons and moderates, the South was legally w/i its rights to leave and we ALL would have been better off if they were allowed to peacefully.

    Competition even works to make States better pleasers of its people. Too bad we ALL lost the Civil War. Yes, including blacks who would have been far easier and more willingly assimulated into free lives in the South without a bloody war to force the issue, or rather, being used as the excuse to create an empire which was the real reason for the Norths hyper-aggression.

  6. Thomas, I doubt there is anything wrong with your ability to read. Rather you ignore the entire passage because it is harmful to your positition that there is a right to secession:

    “The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government.”

    Madison here clearly indicates that secession could only occur if the parties to the creation of the Union agreed to it. His mention of “absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created” is a reference to the right of revolution which is always retained by all people per the Declaration and is different from a right of secession.

    As to your tenth amendment argument, it is rubbish.
    The 10th Amendment created no new rights by its very text. It was a statement that the states and the people retained the rights they had unless delegated to Congress. You are attempting to bootstrap this into a creation of a right of secession which it did not. The 10th Amendment presents an additional obstacle to you. If the people had a right to secession, which people? The people of the state or states attempting to secede, or to all of the American people to say yay or nay to secession? If to the states, each individual state or to all the states of the Union to say yay or nay to secession?

    “Yes, including blacks who would have been far easier and more willingly assimulated into free lives in the South without a bloody war to force the issue, or rather, being used as the excuse to create an empire which was the real reason for the Norths hyper-aggression.”

    I doubt if many black slaves then would have agreed with you, and I doubt if many black Americans today would agree with you. Fellow Americans being held as slaves was a monstrous injustice and it was worth a Civil War to end it. As to your comment that the North went to war to create an empire rather than to preserve a nation, it has no historical basis to support it.

  7. As to your comment that the North went to war to create an empire rather than to preserve a nation, it has no historical basis to support it.

    Not only does the comment lack historical basis, it is in fact the opposite of reality. It was the southern states who pushed for continued expansion. It was the south that favored the war with Mexico and the accumulation of territory further south – and why? To expand the empire for slavery. So if either side had shall we imperialist designs, it was not those damn Yankees.

  8. As to your link concerning Salmon P. Chase’s comments, all I can say is SPIN, SPIN, SPIN.

    “Chase did oppose Davis’s trial, both privately and in his official capacity as Chief Justice, but not because he endorsed Davis’s take on the legality of secession.”

    WHO ever said Chase “endorsed” Davis’ view on secession? He di however, that, by the rule of law, Davis had committed no crime because the rule of law did not declare secession to be illegal.

    Even if Davis’ lawyers cited the 14th amendment as their main defense for their client, secession itself would have come up and the result would have been very embarrassing to the consolidationists.

    This is also why there has never been a real answer to Davis’ book, “Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government”. The lawyer Davis uses flawless arguments in this document.


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: