Year: 1860




limits the authorities, &C.. appertaining to
them;" the term '"respectiye' being con-
strued to mean a constitutional rightin each
State, separately, to decide on and resist by
force encroachments within its limits. A
foresight or apprehension of the rnisconstruc-
ton might easily have guarded against it.
But, to say nothing of the distinction be-
tween ordinary and extreme cases, it is OBJ
servable that in this, as in other instances
throughout the resolutions, the plural num-
ber (Stotes) is used in referring to them !;
that concurrence and cooperation of all
might we'll be contemplated in interpretations
for efecting the objects within reach; and
that the language of the closing resolution
corresponds with this view Of the third
The course Of reasoning in the report on the
resolutions required the distinction between
a State and the States.


1t surely does not follow from the fact Of
the States, or rather the people embodied in
them, having, as parties to the constitution
al compact, no tribunal above them, that,
in controverted meanings of the compact, a
minority of the parties can rig ghtfully decide
against the majority, still less that single
party can decide against the rest, and as lit
tie that it can at will withdraw itself alto
gether from its compact with the rest.


The characteristic distinction between free
Governments and Governments not 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 these being equal,
neither can have more right to say that the
compact has been violated and dissolved
than every other has to deny tie fact and
to insist on the execution of the bargain
An inference from the doctrine that single
State has right to secede at will from the
rest is that the rest would have an equal
right to secede from it; in other words, to
turn it, against it's will, out Of its union
with them. Such doctrine would not, till
of late, have been palatable anywhere, and
nowhere less so than where it is now most
contended for.


A careless view of the subject light find
an analogy between State secession and in
dividual expatriation. But the distinction
is obvious and essential Even in the latter
case, whether regarded as right implicitly
reserved in the original social compact, or
as a reasonable indnl nlgence .it is not exempt
from certain conditions. It must be used
without injustice or injury to the communi-
ty from which the expatriating party sepa-
tes himself. Assuredly he could not with
draw his portion of territory from the COM
mon domain. In the case Of State seced-
ing from the Union, its domain would be dis
membered, and other consequences brought
on not less obvious than pernicious.


l ought not to omit my regret that in the
remark ON Mr.. Jefferson and myself the
names had not been transposed.


Having many reasons for marking this
letter con- tiaeaiA, must request that its
publicity may not be permitted in any mode
or through any channel. Among the rea-
sons is the risk of misapprehensions or mis-
constructions, so common, without more at
tention and development than [ could con-
veniently bestow on what is said. With
respect, JAMES MADISON.


Wishing to be assured that the letter has
not miscarried, single line acknowledging
its receipt will be acceptable.


Some persons might conclude from the
statement in the beginning of this letter,
ga rightful secession requires the consent
of the Others" &C., that Mr.. MADISON re-
cognised in an extreme case the abstract
right of secession now claimed by South
Carolina But, by reference to his letter
of March, 1888, to Mr.. Webster, it will be
seen that he there states that "the right of
seeding for intolerablc oppression is another
name only for revolution. ."-Nut Intel.