A Letter from James Madison to Us Written in 1834

[ltorlo64]

From James Madison (President, Congressman, important proponent and signer of the Constitution, Father of the Bill of Rights, etc) to the US in 1834.

"As this advice, if it ever see the light will not do it till I am no more,
it may be considered as issuing from the tomb, where truth alone can be respected, and the happiness of man alone consulted. It will be entitled therefore to whatever weight can be derived from good intentions, and from the experience of one who has served his country in various stations through a period of forty years, who espoused in his youth and adhered through his life to the cause of its liberty, and who has borne a part in most of the great transactions which will constitute epochs of its destiny.

The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated. Let the open enemy to it be regarded as a Pandora with her box opened; and the disguised one, as the Serpent creeping with his deadly wiles into Paradise."

[Altarboy]

Wow, they were all so hyper-literate. Great stuff there. You should check out Washingtons farewell speech. Their depth of thought was incredible.
I'm not being funny, but I really believe our average iq has dropped, at least among our intelligentsia.

[5.56NATO]

Lincoln also had something to say along similar lines. Something like if we are to ever fall, it will be from within, not without. And here we are.

[FunkyPertwee]

Lincoln also had something to say along similar lines. Something like if we are to ever fall, it will be from within, not without. And here we are.

Lincoln may be the biggest violator of the constitution to ever hold office.

[O.S.O.K.]

They all knew that the system that they devised, as great as it is, is not without flaw and not without weakness. It is vulnerable to the apathy and ignorance of the people.

We are unfortunately, witnessing their greatest fear. Our generation will either go down in history as the savior of the Republic or the destroyer of it.

[ltorlo64]

Lincoln may be the biggest violator of the constitution to ever hold office.

Please explain.

[ltorlo64]

Wow, they were all so hyper-literate. Great stuff there. You should check out Washingtons farewell speech. Their depth of thought was incredible.
I'm not being funny, but I really believe our average iq has dropped, at least among our intelligentsia.

I'm not sure they are less intelligent or just more indoctrinated. I even acknowledge that President Obama is very intelligent. The difference is that President Obama was taught what to believe while our Founders were taught how to think critically.

Take James Madison for example. He could speak and read 6 languages fluently. He didn't have to use someone else's interpretation of what a history written in Greek said as he could read it himself. The same for Thomas Jefferson and most of the other Founders. They embraced knowledge and learning and even when they didn't have the opportunity to go to school they got the books and learned on their own (Lincoln is a great example of this). It seems that now the intelligentsia spends most of their time defending what their teachers taught them than showing how history either supports or disproves their theory.

[FunkyPertwee]

Please explain.

His suspension of habeas corpus and the declaration of marshal law accounted for innumerable violations of the constitution including the imprisonment of anti-Lincoln journalists, the removal of judges from their benches by arresting them without trial, and the overall growth of executive power at the expense of the other two branches. He formed an Army prior to receiving permission from congress. He created an illegal income tax. He violated many other laws, but I'm not enough of a study of Lincoln to name them all.

I interpret the entire war as being unconstitutional, although I don't think that expressing the state's right to voluntarily exit the union is necessary to demonstrate Lincoln's violation of the constitution. In fact I think its pretty much become consensus that Lincoln was willing to violate the letter of the law in order to uphold his vision of republican values. It's up to you to decide whether or not you believe that it was worth it to violate the law in order to maintain the Union.

If in fact you do take the position that a state has the right to exit the union, which is really the only way to interpret the constitutional union of states as being one of consent, then Abraham Lincoln illegally and unjustly started a war that killed over 700,000 Americans and resulted in every sort of war crime imaginable being committed against the south.

Here's a good discussion by Judge Napolitano on the subject of Lincoln.

[ltorlo64]

If you take the position that any state can leave the Union at any time then the Constitution and its ratification process were useless. Not only did each state have to accept the Constitution but in accepting the Constitution they agreed to be bound constitutionally to each state that ratified the Constitution. This means that to leave the Union is a two step process, first the state decides it wants to leave as shown by a vote of the people. Next the other states have to agree to let it leave this time though, via a vote in Congress. The southern states did not do this and attacked a federal fort. This was an unconstitutional act. The other acts of Lincoln were a result of this first act. Since the Constitution allows the President to act when Congress is not in session (ie it does not require him to wait to act to protect the country until Congress is back in session) his decisions were not outside what is allowed by the Constitution. His putting the actions he made before the Congress when they were back in session and their approving his actions was in keeping with the Constitution. Had he not done this he would have be outside the Constitution.

The secession of South Carolina and the attack on a federal fort were the unconstitutional acts that required immediate response, not the other way around.

[alismith]

It's my understanding that most of the Original Colonies that joined the Republic (the original 13 states), retained the right to secede if they felt it necessary, and that many of the states, which joined later, were not given that option.

I think Texas is the only state that still has that clause written in its state constitution, and that's why Texas is the only state that, occasionally, still talks about seceding (more bluster than anything else, now).

I could be wrong on this.

[ltorlo64]

It's my understanding that most of the Original Colonies that joined the Republic (the original 13 states), retained the right to secede if they felt it necessary, and that many of the states, which joined later, were not given that option.

I think Texas is the only state that still has that clause written in its state constitution, and that's why Texas is the only state that, occasionally, still talks about seceding (more bluster than anything else, now).

I could be wrong on this.

There is no right to secede in the Constitution. The only way each state was bound by the Constitution was if the state voted to be bound by it and each state that voted to be bound by the Constitution voted to be bound to the other states that voted to ratify the document. They also voted that the Constitution would not become legitimate until 2/3s (9) states ratified it, but even if 9 states ratified the Constitution the only states bound by the Constitution were those that voted for it.

Texas may have put that into their Constitution but the Federal Constitution, which Texas voted to follow, takes precedence over any state Constitutions on those items which the Constitution was given pre-eminence in. This means that Texas cannot secede from the Union without approval from the same Union that granted them statehood.

[FunkyPertwee]

If you take the position that any state can leave the Union at any time then the Constitution and its ratification process were useless. Not only did each state have to accept the Constitution but in accepting the Constitution they agreed to be bound constitutionally to each state that ratified the Constitution. This means that to leave the Union is a two step process, first the state decides it wants to leave as shown by a vote of the people. Next the other states have to agree to let it leave this time though, via a vote in Congress. The southern states did not do this and attacked a federal fort. This was an unconstitutional act. The other acts of Lincoln were a result of this first act. Since the Constitution allows the President to act when Congress is not in session (ie it does not require him to wait to act to protect the country until Congress is back in session) his decisions were not outside what is allowed by the Constitution. His putting the actions he made before the Congress when they were back in session and their approving his actions was in keeping with the Constitution. Had he not done this he would have be outside the Constitution.

The secession of South Carolina and the attack on a federal fort were the unconstitutional acts that required immediate response, not the other way around.

This means that to leave the Union is a two step process, first the state decides it wants to leave as shown by a vote of the people. Next the other states have to agree to let it leave this time though, via a vote in Congress.

Where can I find this in the Constitution?

The southern states did not do this and attacked a federal fort.

The fort is only federal if secession is unconstitutional.

Regardless of that, Lincoln masterfully manipulated the situation to create the pretense for war. This shouldn't impact your larger points though.

Since the Constitution allows the President to act when Congress is not in session (ie it does not require him to wait to act to protect the country until Congress is back in session) his decisions were not outside what is allowed by the Constitution. His putting the actions he made before the Congress when they were back in session and their approving his actions was in keeping with the Constitution. Had he not done this he would have be outside the Constitution.

This sounds like a reasonable argument for some of his acts prior to outbreak of war.

The secession of South Carolina and the attack on a federal fort were the unconstitutional acts that required immediate response, not the other way around.

I haven't seen any evidence that the Constitution grants the federal government the right to force a state to remain in the Union.



Do you have anything to add about Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, the use of marshal law, and the violation of first amendment rights? Were Lincoln's actions in the north constitutional as well according to your views? Those were really my main points as I already knew you didn't think secession would be constitutional. Again, I'm not a Lincoln history buff, but it's been my understanding that Lincoln continuously violated the constitution in order to preserve the union, even from the perspective of secession being unconstitutional. Essentially, his concentration of federal powers granted him an advantage over the south's weak government, which is an interpretation of the south's loss known as "killed by state's rights".

Thanks for discussing this. I appreciate your opinion.

[ltorlo64]

Where can I find this in the Constitution?

I haven't seen any evidence that the Constitution grants the federal government the right to force a state to remain in the Union.

This is based on logic (legal as well as common sense) as the Constitution addresses how a state is to enter the Union, not on how to leave it. In reading the history of the Constitution and ratificatioin it was not foreseen that a state, once it had entered the Union, would want to leave. The logic, as I have already explained, is that you would reverse the process used to enter to leave. If you allow a state to leave without consulting the same states that had to accept it, then there is no stability in the Union.

The fort is only federal if secession is unconstitutional.

As the Constitution prevents states from setting up armies and reserves the right to have armies to the federal government, for a state to attack the federal fort is an unconstitutional act.

Do you have anything to add about Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, the use of marshal law, and the violation of first amendment rights? Were Lincoln's actions in the north constitutional as well according to your views?

The Constitution does not grant a right of habeas corpus but states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” As South Carolina, and soon followed by other states was in open rebellion to the Constitution Lincoln was not outside the Constitution in suspending the privilege. Again, when Congress came back in session I believe he proposed this as an act and it was approved. (I once tried to read a book about the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. I learned a lot but it was well over my head and didn't finish it. I told a lawyer friend I was reading about it and she told me I was a better person than she for even trying to read about it!)

As for the other "violations" you mention, marshal law and suspension of First Amendment rights, I have to do more research. From what quick reading I have done "marshal law" (which is not actually a real thing but generally means using the federal military to enforce federal law) is allowed in Article 1 during insurrections and attacks on the Union.

Those were really my main points as I already knew you didn't think secession would be constitutional. Again, I'm not a Lincoln history buff, but it's been my understanding that Lincoln continuously violated the constitution in order to preserve the union, even from the perspective of secession being unconstitutional. Essentially, his concentration of federal powers granted him an advantage over the south's weak government, which is an interpretation of the south's loss known as "killed by state's rights".

Actually, until recently I was more a states rights guy and, while I thought I understood Lincoln's wanting to keep the Union together thought he had overstepped his bounds. I have done a lot of reading and research into the Constitution and history of both it and our country as well as some of the underlying causes of the Civil War. The more I have learned the more I have come to believe that it was Lincoln that was in the right (in this case) to maintain the Union. The South's weak government, which was caused by their trying to go back to a confederated (a loose agreement between states, more like a treaty that could be broken by any as they saw fit) vice a constituted (a much more regimented agreement that established a central government that had powers to protect the whole) government, is a great example of why Lincoln fought for the Union and the Constitution. Without the centralized government and ability to muster the entire country to fight against the South the outcome could have been much different.

Thanks for discussing this. I appreciate your opinion.[/QUOTE]

[T2K]

People. it's martial law, don't confuse that with the Marshall Plan!

Beyond that, ltorlo, your logical assumptions about what it takes to leave the Union are not dumb and I get where you are coming from. However, equally logical cases can and are made about why a state can leave the union if, after due process (vote of the state's representative body, as SC did in Dec 1860), the state's citizens decide to leave.

What sort of club or union or association which you join voluntarily bounds you to it forever and will kill you (invasion, in the state context) if you try to leave? The mob and other criminal gangs are the only ones I can think of.

Clearly, I think secession is lawful. However, we should not have fired on Ft Sumter. We should have made it 100% clear that we wanted nothing but to leave in peace. Cadets of The Citadel fired on and drove away (without casualties) the only resupply ship sent to Ft Sumter from NY; SC could have prevented resupply. Ft Sumter would have surrendered eventually.

[ltorlo64]

People. it's martial law, don't confuse that with the Marshall Plan!

Thanks!

Beyond that, ltorlo, your logical assumptions about what it takes to leave the Union are not dumb and I get where you are coming from. However, equally logical cases can and are made about why a state can leave the union if, after due process (vote of the state's representative body, as SC did in Dec 1860), the state's citizens decide to leave.

I used to think so, too, until I realized that the vote to ratify the Constitution was a two part vote, one to accept the Constitution and the other to accept the other states that accepted ratified it. If a state liked the Constitution but did not want to bind itself to the other states then it did not ratify the document, which is the first action a couple of states took. When you look at their state Constitutions they were not too far off from what they were asked to ratify but the states did not want to bind themselves in that way to the other states.

It helped me to look up the word constitute as compared to confederate. To constitute is a stronger term with more legal implications than to confederate. To constitute means to make one out of many, to confederate means that many make an agreement to work together, but they are still separate. This is why (am I currently learning in a book I am reading) why the term constitution was used instead of confederation and why the original colonies decided the confederation they had been working under was not adequate for their protection and the success of maintaining liberty from England (or France or Spain or any other country that was acting in a threatening way towards us).

In my mind the argument for secession is very similar to the argument for gun control. To make it requires changing what wording and original intent was when the Constitution was ratified. A great way to see original intent is to read some of the Anti-Federalist papers which explain the dangers of the Constitution, one being that the states were giving up some of their independence to a much stronger central government than the Articles of Confederation provided (which as a confederation was almost nothing).

What sort of club or union or association which you join voluntarily bounds you to it forever and will kill you (invasion, in the state context) if you try to leave? The mob and other criminal gangs are the only ones I can think of.

The difference being that the South could have brought a bill of secession before Congress, sort of like a divorce. To just leave, and to attack your mate while you are leaving, never results in anything good.

Clearly, I think secession is lawful. However, we should not have fired on Ft Sumter. We should have made it 100% clear that we wanted nothing but to leave in peace. Cadets of The Citadel fired on and drove away (without casualties) the only resupply ship sent to Ft Sumter from NY; SC could have prevented resupply. Ft Sumter would have surrendered eventually.

As I have been learning more about the Constitution, why and how it was passed, and the arguments for and against, I am thinking about writing a paper on it. It will be to show that the very first "lesser of two evils" vote we had in this country was the ratification vote. The Constitution was not perfect as the Anti-Federalists pointed out and the Articles of Confederation left a lot to be desired (and a couple of states had for all intents and purposes had left the confederation) which the Federalists also pointed out. It is a very interesting thing to look at.

[FunkyPertwee]

Thanks for the reply.

In reading the history of the Constitution and ratificatioin it was not foreseen that a state, once it had entered the Union, would want to leave.

The anti-federalists were opposed to much of what was included in the constitution. Surely the country did not stand unanimously, assuming that no state would ever have a desire to exit the union, especially when so many were fearful of the constitution's support of a strong federal government leading to Tyranny.

The logic, as I have already explained, is that you would reverse the process used to enter to leave. If you allow a state to leave without consulting the same states that had to accept it, then there is no stability in the Union.

Does the pragmatic need for a stable union supersede the supremacy of the 10'th amendment, or is this sort of like the elastic clause, in which the constitution is assumed to support certain powers that remained unnamed?

As the Constitution prevents states from setting up armies and reserves the right to have armies to the federal government, for a state to attack the federal fort is an unconstitutional act.

It has been my understanding that the fort was fired upon by local miscreants, not an illegal state army. If secession is legal, which was the view of the state, then the federal government had no claim to any forts in the Charleston harbor.

I'll add that Lincoln's use of a supply ship as a sacrificial target to be used for creating the pretense of war has been used in several American wars since then, including the Spanish American war and the US involvement in WW1. Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and 9/11 could be viewed similarly as well IMO, but I don't necessarily expect most people to take this view.

The Constitution does not grant a right of habeas corpus but states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” As South Carolina, and soon followed by other states was in open rebellion to the Constitution Lincoln was not outside the Constitution in suspending the privilege. Again, when Congress came back in session I believe he proposed this as an act and it was approved. (I once tried to read a book about the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. I learned a lot but it was well over my head and didn't finish it. I told a lawyer friend I was reading about it and she told me I was a better person than she for even trying to read about it!)

Thanks for the explanation. I had been aware of some of this, but never thought of habeas corpus as a "privilege". Considering that the colonists had been regularly

I would argue that regardless of constitutionality, this represented a dangerous concentration of executive power that was grossly misused during and after the war. Unfortunately future presidents have and will continue to emulate Lincoln's use of execute powers during tumultuous times.

Additionally, I can't help but wonder if this would be a perfect example of exactly what the anti-federalists were fearful of during the ratification of the constitution.

As for the other "violations" you mention, marshal law and suspension of First Amendment rights, I have to do more research. From what quick reading I have done "marshal law" (which is not actually a real thing but generally means using the federal military to enforce federal law) is allowed in Article 1 during insurrections and attacks on the Union.

There is always more research to do, but that's the fun part.

I do remember that a common criticism of Lincoln was that his argument shifted between the south being a collection of states in rebellion and the south being a foreign enemy nation depending on how he intended to use executive power.

Actually, until recently I was more a states rights guy and, while I thought I understood Lincoln's wanting to keep the Union together thought he had overstepped his bounds. I have done a lot of reading and research into the Constitution and history of both it and our country as well as some of the underlying causes of the Civil War. The more I have learned the more I have come to believe that it was Lincoln that was in the right (in this case) to maintain the Union. The South's weak government, which was caused by their trying to go back to a confederated (a loose agreement between states, more like a treaty that could be broken by any as they saw fit) vice a constituted (a much more regimented agreement that established a central government that had powers to protect the whole) government, is a great example of why Lincoln fought for the Union and the Constitution. Without the centralized government and ability to muster the entire country to fight against the South the outcome could have been much different.

I should have known better than to make assumptions.

I understand the pragmatic benefits of the constitution over a loose confederacy, and I certainly would never try to claim that the confederate states were somehow the greater defenders of liberty when their states maintained the "right" of keeping human chattel, however I would ask what is the real purpose of the constitution if it is going to sacrifice individual rights and the diffusion of government power in favor of maintaining its own authority? Were the horrors of the civil war and its aftermath worth it to maintain the stability of the political union of states?

As it stands, I still hold Judge Napolitano's view that Lincoln violated the constitution in his prosecution of the civil war.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that it seems as if the modern state of the union has essentially verified the legitimacy of the fears of the anti-federalists and the secessionists. If that is the case, I believe Lincoln should be given credit for propelling the US in that direction with his concentration of executive powers and growth of the power of the federal government.

[FunkyPertwee]

As I have been learning more about the Constitution, why and how it was passed, and the arguments for and against, I am thinking about writing a paper on it. It will be to show that the very first "lesser of two evils" vote we had in this country was the ratification vote. The Constitution was not perfect as the Anti-Federalists pointed out and the Articles of Confederation left a lot to be desired (and a couple of states had for all intents and purposes had left the confederation) which the Federalists also pointed out. It is a very interesting thing to look at.

I'd like to encourage you to write that paper. I would continue to write if I thought I could get published, or even if I had an historian to criticize my work to help me improve.

[ltorlo64]

I'd like to encourage you to write that paper. I would continue to write if I thought I could get published, or even if I had an historian to criticize my work to help me improve.

Thanks for the encouragement. My method of publishing is having you'all look at it and then after giving you guys first crack I put it on FB. I look at FB as the answer to the pamphlets that were published by Patriots during and before the Revolution.

[FunkyPertwee]

Thanks for the encouragement. My method of publishing is having you'all look at it and then after giving you guys first crack I put it on FB. I look at FB as the answer to the pamphlets that were published by Patriots during and before the Revolution.

Cool. Maybe I'll consider doing the same.

In regards to FB being the modern pamphlets, FB has computer algorithms that restrict the exposure of unwanted ideas. If they detect its something they don't like, it might only let 5-10% of your friends see it, unfortunately.

[T2K]

I look forward to reading the paper too, lotorlo.

Indeed, the point re: "constitution vs confederation" is one that made me think.

Incidentally, it wasn't Lincoln that sent the Star of the West from New York to Charleston Harbor to resupply and reinforce Ft Sumter in Jan 1861, it was outgoing President Buchanan. Lincoln was only the President-Elect at that point, his inauguration wasn't until March 1861.

Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed the decision to fire on Sumter and supposedly said doing so "will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."