Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1860-11-27
F7mhs Charlttssyin' Rsvis''.
SpUBIISED LETTER FROM Mr.. MADISON

Ffomike CharlktssvfW heV's"'
AN UNPUBLISHED LETTER FROM NIX hADiSoN
ON SECESSION.
We are indeitd to our fiend Alexander Hives, ESD,
for the followuetler iroh Mr. Madison on tue suoec'
Of State Secession al r-;..A
of Union and STATE Rights published two communica-
lions In the Virginia (Chartesyie) Advocate The let,
ter of Mr. Madison was cad forth oy 'nese AuoeS auI
was addressed to the wriir Of them unue, DIS non e
pl,ne 1t beas date pat letter from hr nN ESQ ~
reply to it, in eur possesspn is dated 'Auu' ''' i'"'
We publish verodtin fpm the MO-
CONFIDENTIAL.
have received the Letter signed FRIEND Of Union
and State Rights incosg two Essays unoer 'he same
signature. 81. .-,.h.,,. A..
IL is not usual to ansye communications without tne
proper names ID them But the ablity anu Tue mV''es
psIIossd In the Essavs Iduce me to say in compliance
with the wish expressed that do not consider the pro-
ceediugs of Virginia n9s-'99, as Commencing 'ne
doctrine that safe nv at nil secede from It's Consul
tu,ional compact with lie other States A rghtnl Sc
cessiop REQUIRES the cosnt OF the Others or an abuse
of the compact absolvg the seeding party from the
obligations imposed byt. ia. r.
the question It is Necessary 10 keep in view the precise
state of the question nd the positions and arguments
on the other side This particularly necessary 10 ques
tons arising under ourovel and compound system oi
government. Much erpr aud confusion nave grown OUT
of a neglect Of this preauIion.
The case of the Alieand Sedition acts was question
hstween the Goyernmnt and the Constituent Body,
Virginia making appeal to the latter against the as
sumption of power by ne former
The case Of claim ira State to secede from its union
with the Others is question among the states 'nem-
selves as parties 10 a cenpact w.t..
In the former case itms asserted against virginia,
that the States had no ht TO nterpose Legislative dec
arations Of opinion on constitutional points nora right
10 interpose at all aganst decision Of the supreme
Court Of the United Stats which was to be regarded as
a tribunal from which tire could be no appeal.
The object of Virgiia was to vindicate Legislative
declarations Of opnionto designate the several Cons-
ffioual modes of inteposton by the States against
abuses of power; and establish the ultimate authority
Of the States parties aud creditors o. the Oonstu
ton to nterpose agans the decisions Oh the as
well as the other branchs Of the Government-the au
hority of the Judicial beNg in no sense ultimate out OF
the purview and form of ne Constitution.
Much use has been mae OF the term respective IN
the Sd Resolution of Virnia which asserts the right OF
the States of sJhcient magnitude TO lnterpose
"or maintaining within heir respective limits the auhor
ties, &c appertaining bthem; the term respective
being construed TO meant Constitutional right IN edeh
State seDaraelv to decih and resist by force en-
croachments within its limits foresight or apprehen-
sion of the msconstructbn might easily have guarded
against it. But to say nothing OF the distinction be-
tween ordinary and exeme cases. 1t Is Observable tha
in this as in other instances throughout the Resolutions
luunDeT-Dt1CA-l5
that concurrence andcooperation of all might well be
contemplated in nterpstons for ehectng the objects
within each and that he language Of the closing Reso-
lutions corresponds with this view OF the third The
course OF reasoning nhe Report on the Resolutions re-
uuired the distinction between State and the States
IL surely does not follow from the fact OF the States
or rather the people embodied in them having as parties
to the Constitutional compact no tribunal above them
that in controverted meanings OF the compact minor
ity of the parties rghuly decide against the ma
orty still less that single party can decide against
the rest and little tina it at will withdraw itself
altogether from its compsct with the rest
The characteristic distinction between free Govern
ments and Governments rot free is that the former are
founded on compact not between the Government and
those for whom it acts but among the parties creating
the Government Each OF those being equal, neither
can have more right to sly that the compact has been
violated and dissolved than every other has TO deny the
fact and to insist the execution OF the bargain An
inference from the doctrine that Jingle State has right
10 secede at will from the rest is that the rest would
have an equal right to ecede from il in other words
to turn it, against its WILL out OF its union with them
Such doctrine would lot till OF late have been paat
able anywhere and nowhere less so than where 1t Is now
most contended Tor.
careless view Of the subject might find an analogy
between State secession aud individual exparaton But
the distinction is obviousand essential Even in the lat
ter case whether regarded as right mpedy reserved
in the original social compact or as reasonable lnuu
gence it Is not exempt IRON certain conditions 1t must
be used without injustice injury to the community
rom which the expltraing party separates himself As
suredly he could not withdraw his portion OF territory
from the common domain In the case of State sece-
ding from the Union its domain would be dismembered
and other brought not less obvious than
pernicious
ought not to omit my regret that in the remark on
Mr. Jefferson and myself the names had not been trans
posed.
Having many reasons for marking this letter confden
tal must request that its publicity may not be permit
ted in any mode or through any channel Among the
reasons is the risk misappehensons or msconstruc-
ton so common without more attention and develop
ment than could conveniently bestow on what Is said
With-respect,
JAMES MADISON.
Wishing to be assured that the letter has not miscar-
red, single line acknowledging its receipt will be &C.
ceptable.
Some persons might conclude from the statement in
the beginning of this letter. "a rghtlul secession re-
quires the consent of the Others &C. that Mr. Madison
recognized in an extreme the abstract right OF Sc
cession now claimed by South Carolina But by refer
ence to his letter Of March, 1888, to Me- Webster it
will be seen that he there states that he right of Sc
ceding for intoerabe oppression is another name only
for revolution"