One, to represent the views of their respective constituencies, those constituencies typically being from various opposed points of view.

Two, because more informed of the details of the issues than their respective constituencies, to vote their consciences, even when that is contrary to the constituency.

It is the extremist who reduces everything to simpleton’s either/or.

As for “interposition” and “nullification”: the meaning is this: the state “interposes” itself between Federal gov’t and state, and by that means “nullifies” the Federal law at issue.

It isn’t a complicated question, actually: Both Jefferson and Madison opposed “nullification,” which wasn’t difficult in view of the fact that the Constitution already trumped the “nullification” lie — it’s clearly a lie because, as Madison makes clear, it required consciously ignoring facts in order to deliberately misconstrue the “evidence” to justify the lie.

The US Constitution is expressly the supreme Law of the Land; thus any state law — it would require a law — purporting to nullify a Federal law would be contrary to that Federal law, thus immediately null-and-void.

Otherwise, all these little self-important groups of law-illiterates who take upon themselves the arrogant temerity to unilaterally declare laws “unconstitutional,” based solely upon their dislike of the law, are the essence of stupid and intellectually dishonest. The Constitution they falsely claim to be about defending provides the means by which to properly challenge those laws: by taking the matter to court, or by lobbying Congress for amendment or repeal, or both.

Instead, in essentially every instance, they call for violent revolution, the first step being assertion of one or another false justification for their self-important hurt feelings, and always in “defense” of the Constitution, which expressly slaps them down with this:

Art. I., S., 8, C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, (and) suppress Insurrections.

And, yes: Madison expressly denied the right of secession, based upon the principle of majority rule. Read again his denunciation of “nullification” as, as example, a “colossal heresy” and a “specious doctrine”. If those who falsely reduce the Constitution to mere “contract” want to insist on that falsehood, then they are claiming any party to a contract has a right to withdraw from it _without penalty_ — which makes nonsense of law itself.

Stupid is as stupid is because stupid is easier than knowing what one is talking about based upon standard distinctions instead of anarchic ignorance.

1. “These are excellent excuses but excuses none the less.” I figure they looked less like “excuses” if your revolutionary prospects were limited to suicidal localized revolts whose chief medium-term effect would be a reign of terror inflicted on uninvolved slaves and free blacks both near and far. Some Madisonian prudence goes a long way here.

2. “You’re hung up on ‘at will secession.’ Well, if at-will secession is not legal, then the only kind of legal unilateral secession possible would be of the revolutionary kind. That kind of secession is dependent on the cause. Alexander Stephens explained for us the cause of the attempted secession of 1860-1861. He said, “Those ideas[that slavery was wrong], however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.” Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” We can wonder whether splitting the United States to establish a slavery-based republic was a just cause.

3. Probably. I’ll get around to it. Thank you for the suggestion.

4. “I believe Mr. Henry’s quote should be in my column.” Well if Henry believes that the Constitution formed a consolidationist government (and he evidently did), then there can be no question of state government’s legal right to nullify federal law or secede. Now, I think Henry’s interpretation of the Constitution is too centralist, but Madison and Henry, the leaders of the two opposing sides at the Virginal ratifying convention agree that states give up their undivided sovereignty when they ratify the Constitution. I’m not sure how the people involved (including John Marshall) could have been clearer.

5. See above. See John Marshall. This is a case where both sides in the original dispute agree on the legalities.

6. “The Humean idea of a vibrant Americanism that incorporates the right of secession into his political thought is obvious in the First American Secessonist War of 1776 and made public in that beloved secessionist document, the Declaration of Independence.”

Quite so. So let us look at what the Declaration of Indolence tells us about moral criteria for revolutionary secession.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

A revolution to establish a slavery-based republic fails by these criteria as completely as is possible. It is, if anything, an inversion of the “vibrant Americanism that incorporates the right of secession” that was explained for us by the Founders and that neither Madison nor Jackson nor Lincoln ever denied.

Par. 1: These are excellent excuses but excuses none the less. Freedom/liberty is and always was worth engaging in violent revolution and in risking one’s life. You justify the lack of resistance to this great fear of the ‘consequences,’ and I don’t buy it. History tells us time and again how minorities with very little chance of success seek to overthrow those majorities who oppress them.

Par. 2: You’re hung up on ‘at will secession.’ My comment was directed at the fact that even the secretly contrived, and closed to the public, deliberations of the Constitution established a general gummint with specific, few, and enumerated powers while RESERVING all other political power either to the STATE or the individual. As I read you, you seem to agree with me?

Par. 3: You would enjoy the two volume “Political Sermons of the American Founding Era.”

Par. 4: I believe Mr. Henry’s quote should be in my column. He presciently recognizes, given the fallen nature of man, that this new Constitution will be perverted by consolidators, trimmers, and centralists of every stripe. Madison, no dummy, probably recognized that as well but it all depended on whose interests he was then serving.

Par. 5.: ” Madison couldn’t have been more clear about this in Federalist 39, “It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government.”
Pete, I’m smiling. This is very much like me saying that any political argument between Bob and Pete, Bob is going to decide. The states did not give up sovereignty, they ceded certain specific powers to the general gov’t.
It is critical to understand that the states established the general gov’t and provided those powers to that gov’t necessary to conduct its business as per the Constitution.

The establishment of the general gov’t/constitution was a voluntary compact among the several states. By definition and original intent any of the several states freely participating in this compact were also free to secede from this arrangement. Such is the very essence and nature of liberty, first exercised against Great Britain in 1776.

Par. 6: I’m with Jefferson on the idea of a little ‘revolution’ every generation or so. Sadly, the War of Northern Aggression ended that, but if we’d hang some legislators (and I agree, given the fallen nature of man, you’re going to hang a few innocent Congressmen now and then) it just might put the fear of God in them, not to mention the fear of the citizenry which is a good thing.

The Humean idea of a vibrant Americanism that incorporates the right of secession into his political thought is obvious in the First American Secessonist War of 1776 and made public in that beloved secessionist document, the Declaration of Independence.
In 1861 Mr. Lincoln, acting as the aggressor, ordered the invasion of the South, following the southern states’ legally conducted secessionist conventions, for the declared purpose of illegally maintaining the integrity of the mythical “Union.” The reasons, both economic and political, as to why the southern states chose to severe their eighty-eight year relationship with the United States of America was properly and legally addressed by their citizenry in convention as required.

Pete, the only leg you have to stand on is the nastiness of slavery and I’m more than willing to concede that, just as I’m sure that you’re willing to concede that the gov’t that came into existence as a result of Lincoln’s tyranny, our progressivist ‘social democracy’, has engineered the systematic slaughter of over fifty million American infants, most destroyed utilizing tax dollars and grant monies. And, of course, this American ‘social democracy’ has committed any number of additional transgressions that would not have occurred under a republican gov’t.

“it takes a low man to pervert the obvious and straight forward limitations of the general gummint provided in the US Constitution” If you want to call Madison, Henry, etc. for believing that the Constitution barred legal, at-will secession.

“provided not only for the state, but the individual the best chance of existing in a reality that mimics the freedom that God intends” You will not find that sentiment in the Cornerstone Speech.

“Common sense dictates that men who had just fought the greatest army in the world and beaten them would cede sovereignty to the general gov’t” Common sense dictates that we are better off looking at what the wrote and said rather than what Jefferson Davis might have wished they had said. We have already seen what Madison said about the idea that states retained undivided sovereignty under the Constitution. Let us turn to his chief opponent at the Virginia ratifying convention. Henry said “That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a Government, is, to my mind, very striking…Is the Government of Virginia a State Government after this Government is adopted? I grant that it is a Republican Government–but for what purposes? For such trivial domestic considerations, as render it unworthy the name of a Legislature.” Now I think Madison would have argued that Henry exaggerated how centralist the Constitution really was and underrated the role of the states in the Constitution, but they could agree that adoption of the Constitution meant that states gave up undivided sovereignty.

“These Americans unlike our contemporary twits” These Americans, at the Constitutional Convention, at the Virginia ratifying convention and in the Federalist were informed that the Constitution did not allow each state legislature the power to decide what the constitutional limits of the federal government were within that state’s boundaries. Madison couldn’t have been more clear about this in Federalist 39, “It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.”

“But, even with the Constitution, had they hung any number of Senators and Congressmen…” It is unclear who is to do the hanging and be the hanged. In both the Nullification controversy and the attempted secession of 1860-1861, the nullifiers/secessionists were a distinct minority. And public controversy is likely to enlist a substantial body of partisans on either side and rather more bloodshed that a few members of Congress or else coups d’état in which those who mange to gain control of the military seize power over the state and eliminate the political rights of the opposition. One can hardly imagine a better scenario for a government that alternates between anarchy and despotism.

Peter, I sense a movement here!
“And, let’s be very clear, we have a vibrant TRADITION regarding secession” Actually, since the adoption of the Constitution, history shows that we have a vibrant history of deterring or defeating threats of at-will secession.

Yes, yes, but military might doesn’t negate the right of secession, it only means the consolidators with overwhelming military strength won.

Further, you have a point re: the Constitution though you go too far. The Articles of Confederation, in terms of a federated, constitutional republic is a far better document. However, it takes a low man to pervert the obvious and straight forward limitations of the general gummint provided in the US Constitution (and many politicians over the years have done exactly that). The point that I sense is that you are beginning to see how things changed with the advent of nationalism and industrialism, the Lincoln regime, vs. the doctrines of the olde republic. You may, if you wish, rationalize these fascinating historical events but my point is that the old Americanism structured and protected by the doctrines inherent in the idea of a federated, constitutional republic provided not only for the state, but the individual the best chance of existing in a reality that mimics the freedom that God intends. In that sense, and understanding the limitations of the constitutional republic and the necessity for men of good will, we bear witness to that political system that provides the best opportunity for us to live the life God intended for human beings.

“Now Marshall was a Federalist delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, but the leader of the opposition at the very same convention agreed with Marshall that the states were giving up undivided sovereignty in ratifying the Constitution.”
Absolutely not. Common sense dictates that men who had just fought the greatest army in the world and beaten them would cede sovereignty to the general gov’t. Actually, as Jeffrerson points out they were ‘jealous’ of the hard won freedom of their STATE and would never have tolerated the usurpations of the general gov’t.

These Americans unlike our contemporary twits were suspicious of the general gov’t usurping their ‘rights’ that’s why they ENUMERATED the powers of the central state and left ALL other powers to the states.

“…your problem starts with the Constitution rahter than with Lincoln.” You’re right, give me the old Articles of Confederation anytime. But, even with the Constitution, had they hung any number of Senators and Congressmen that should have nicely restrained the libido dominandi that always infects the political classes. Traitors should always be forced to publicly suffer for their actions.

“Pete, Madison and Hamilton asserted in the Federalist that while they were opposed to secession the general gummint had no authority to coerce a seceding state.”

When discussing the case of a state that has already ratified the Constitution, the only thing in the Federalist that I can remember that seems to bear on this point is in Federalist #46 “If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.” the only implication I can draw from that is that the federal has the authority to enforce federal laws over the opposition of the state government but would have difficulty in doing so. The rest of the essay consists of prudential (but not legal reasons) for why the federal government is less of a threat to impinge on the powers of the state government than vice versa.

The most direct statement of Madison on secession was in his letter to Daniel Webster “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.”

“Whereas Lincoln, a man who had abandoned the founding principles related to a federated, constitutional republic…” Patrick Henry would say that we stopped being federated (in the old, pre-US Constitution sense of the term) with the adoption of the Constitution. Madison, Jackson, etc. would have agreed with Henry on the secession part. You might argue that the founding principles were abandoned by the founders (and some have), but your problem starts with the Constitution rahter than with Lincoln.

“In entering into a compact that formed the general gummint, no state, at any time, ceded its sovereignty or independence to that general gummint.”

John Marshall on that subject “It has been said that they [the states]were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change”

Now Marshall was a Federalist delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, but the leader of the opposition at the very same convention agreed with Marshall that the states were giving up undivided sovereignty in ratifying the Constitution.

” Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is ‘secession’ of (a) state(s) prohibited.

Madison is 1787 “A sanction is essential to the idea of law, as coercion is to that of Government. The federal [Confederation] system being destitute of both, wants the great vital principles of a Political Constitution… As far as the Union of the States is to be regarded as a league of sovereign powers, and not as a political Constitution by virtue of which they are become one sovereign power, so far it seems to follow from the doctrine of compacts, that a breach of any of the articles of the confederation by any of the parties to it, absolves the other parties from their respective obligations, and gives them a right if they chuse to exert it, of dissolving the Union altogether.” The Constitution (which as Marshall, Jackson, Henry, etc. recognized as not a league), by being a Constitution and not a treaty, foreclosed legal at-will secession under the understanding of those who wrote it, supported it and opposed it at the time.

“And, let’s be very clear, we have a vibrant TRADITION regarding secession” Actually, since the adoption of the Constitution, history shows that we have a vibrant history of deterring or defeating threats of at-will secession.

I believe we’re going over plowed ground, but because it’s important let’s make a couple of points:
1.I agree, the African slaves had every right to revolt ‘against the government that enslaved them.’ That would be the United States of America, btw.
2. Perhaps most telling is that other than the aforementioned Nat Turner and a couple of others, there was no such ‘revolt’ in the African-American community. I would be eager to read any blog you wrote on why there was never an organized revolution/uprising among the blacks, Southern or otherwise.

Pete, Madison and Hamilton asserted in the Federalist that while they were opposed to secession the general gummint had no authority to coerce a seceding state.

Whereas Lincoln, a man who had abandoned the founding principles related to a federated, constitutional republic in favor of those pernicious principles associated with consolidation and centralization, had no problem in directing a total war against not only the heroic armies of the South but southern women, children and other non-combatants while his troops engaged, almost at will, in rapine, plunder, and the senseless and immoral destruction of private property in order to place his civilian enemies in reduced circumstances, including starvation.

In entering into a compact that formed the general gummint, no state, at any time, ceded its sovereignty or independence to that general gummint. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is ‘secession’ of (a) state(s) prohibited.

And, let’s be very clear, we have a vibrant TRADITION regarding secession where the so-called ‘American Revolution’ was, in reality, an act of secession, while the much loved Declaration of Independence is a document enumerating the reasons for and necessity of the secession of the free and independent American colonies from Great Britain. If you want I can explain the differences but I believe you already understand them.

A free and self governing people in a federated constitutional republic have the right, by state, to secede. This is a long held American tradition, though it has not been much taught in American schools since the ‘late unpleasantness,’ given the triumph of those anti-American forces of consolidation.

“You might want to check the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution” It would strike Madison and Henry as surprising that the Bill of Rights supplied a right of state at-will secession where there had not been one before (and they had agreed that no such right existed under the Constitution.)

“this is just the example and time Jefferson was referring to in his argument that in order to maintain that unique American republicanism, we would have to engage in ‘revolution’ every generation or so. The idea of federal largesse has RUINED this country financially. How much BETTER would it have been for true Americans to hang a few federal lawmakers ”

Jefferson was writing about a revolt against a state government and before the French Revolution. I don’t recall a similar blithe statement by Jefferson regarding (violent) revolution that comes after Napoleon taking power. Maybe he made such a later statement, but if he had, shame on him. It should also be noted that, since controversial polices are likely to have partisans on several sides, settling disputes by violence would more likely result in civil wars or coups d’état than events where a few federal legislators get hanged and everybody else goes happily on along.

“Mr. Lincoln and his acolytes can say all they want about the ‘illegality’ of secession” Andrew Jackson, Patrick Henry and James Madison (great southern men all) were not “acolytes” of Lincoln – though Lincoln agreed with them on this point.

“There is nothing holy or sacred about the general gummint of the United States” That statement doesn’t seem quite right. How about “There is nothing holy or sacred about gummint.” Much better. So now back to when one might be justified in revolt against one’s government…

“Your opening paragraph indicates your agreement that there are reasons for rebellion against the general gummint.” When have I (or Madison or Lincoln, or Jackson) denied that revolt might be justified depending on the circumstances (though they might differ on the circumstances.) To pick a nonrandom example, slaves would be justified in revolting against a government that enslaved them.

“Just the same, someone who takes up bloody rebellion on the pretext of objecting to the interstate highway system is a lunatic rather than an exemplar of republican virtue even if he is right about the underlying issue.”
Pete, this is just the example and time Jefferson was referring to in his argument that in order to maintain that unique American republicanism, we would have to engage in ‘revolution’ every generation or so. The idea of federal largesse has RUINED this country financially. How much BETTER would it have been for true Americans to hang a few federal lawmakers to illustrate the fact that the general gummint will FOREVER be limited, defined, and restricted in it’s avarice. Peter, you’ve fallen victim to modernity!

Mr. Lincoln and his acolytes can say all they want about the ‘illegality’ of secession (imposed by the force of arms, not by political negotiation) but if that’s the case, what, in heaven’s name, will stand against the general gummint in her usurpations?
From Stromberg’s “Republicanism, Federalism, and Secession”(Secession, State, and Liberty, David Gordon, editor, Transaction Press) we have Mr. Jefferson’s comment, to wit, “..the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact..they..delegated to [that government] certain definite powers, reserving…the residuary mass of rights to their own self-government.” Peter, we have a MORAL obligation to restrain the avarice of the general gummint, even Madison in his federal parsimony agreed with that.
We are never subjects of the general gummint; we are always citizens, and obligated to all that that entails.
Your opening paragraph indicates your agreement that there are reasons for rebellion against the general gummint.
Good, I agree.
I don’t think your threshold of rebellion is the same as mine, but hey, I appreciate the fact that you have one, and perhaps, someday you’ll develop a criteria for rebellion-secession. There is nothing holy or sacred about the general gummint of the United States, in fact one might argue that the clowns that have been running the nat’l gummint have not only screwed things up, badly, but, over the past several decades, they’ve gotten a lot of good Americans killed and wounded for no good reason.