Analyzing meaning of a document, help please

[Rogue 9]

Okay, this is a letter written by James Madison to Senator William Rives on March 12, 1833. Senator Rives had just given a speech in opposition of the Nullification Doctrines that were at that time causing the Nullification Crisis and had sent a copy of the speech to Madison, and it is concerning this speech that Madison is writing to him.

Now, I introduced this in the belief that the letter clearly shows that Madison was opposed to secession from the Union and state-level nullification of federal laws. However, my esteemed opposition has concluded that the letter indicates that Madison didn't like the ideas of secession and nullification, but still agreed that the right existed. Another yahoo who jumped in when I introduced this actually produced the opposite analysis of mine; that Madison was saying that the United States is not a sovereign nation, but merely a loose league between the states. I'm 99.9% sure I'm right, but I don't want to proceed without checking up on this. So, without further ado, the letter:

To William Cabell Rives

Montpr, March 12, 1833

Dear Sir,

I have recd your very kind letter of the 6th, from Washington, and by the same mail a copy of your late Speech in the Senate, for which I tender my thanks. I have found as I expected, that it takes a very able and enlightening view of its subject. I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves, those who now Contend that the States have never parted with an Atom of their sovereignty, and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.

It seems strange that it should be necessary to disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine, and stranger still that those who deny it should be denounced as Innovators, heretics & Apostates. Our political system is admitted to be a new Creation — a real nondescript. Its character therefore must be sought within itself, not in precedents, because there are none, not in writers whose comments are guided by precedents. Who can tell at present how Vattel and others of that class, would have qualified (in the Gallic sense of the term) a Compound & peculiar system with such an example of it as ours before them.

What can be more preposterous than to say that the States as united, are in no respect or degree, a Nation, which implies sovereignty, altho' acknowledged to be such by all other Nations & Sovereigns, and maintaining with them, all the in ternational relations, of war & peace, treaties, commerce, &c, and, on the other hand and at the same time, to say that the States separately are compleatly nations & sovereigns, although they can separately neither speak nor harken to any other nation, nor maintain with it any of the international relations whatever and would be disowned as Nations if presenting themselves in that character.

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?

In explaining the proceedings of Virga in 98-99, the state of things at that time was the more properly appealed to, as it has been too much overlooked. The doctrines combated are always a key to the arguments employed. It is but too common to read the expressions of a remote period thro' the modern meaning of them, & to omit guards agst misconstruction not anticipated. A few words with a prophetic gift, might have prevented much error in the glosses on those proceedings. The remark is equally applicable to the Constitution itself.

Having thrown these thoughts on paper in the midst of interruptions added to other dangers of inaccuracy, I will ask the favor of you to return the letter after perusal. I have latterly taken this liberty with more than one of my corresponding friends. And every lapse of very short periods becomes now a fresh apology for it.

Neither Mrs. M. nor myself have forgotten the promised visit which included Mrs. Rives, and we flatter ourselves the fulfilment of it, will not be very distant. Meanwhile we tender to you both our joint & affecte. salutations.

P. Script. I inclose a little pamphlet rec. a few days ago, which so well repaid my perusal, that I submit it to yours, to be returned only at your leisure. It is handsomely written, and its matter well chosen & interesting. A like task as well executed in every State wd. be of historical value; the more so as the examples might both prompt & guide researches, not as yet too late but rapidly becoming so.

Thanks for any help.

[Imperial Overlord]

Your interpretation is correct.

The following passage:

it seems strange that it should be necessary to disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine,

[emphasis mine]

is quite damning.

[Rogue 9]

My own analysis follows:

To William Cabell Rives

Montpr, March 12, 1833

Dear Sir,

I have recd your very kind letter of the 6th, from Washington, and by the same mail a copy of your late Speech in the Senate, for which I tender my thanks. I have found as I expected, that it takes a very able and enlightening view of its subject. I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves, those who now Contend that the States have never parted with an Atom of their sovereignty, and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.

It seems strange that it should be necessary to disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine, and stranger still that those who deny it should be denounced as Innovators, heretics & Apostates. Our political system is admitted to be a new Creation — a real nondescript. Its character therefore must be sought within itself, not in precedents, because there are none, not in writers whose comments are guided by precedents. Who can tell at present how Vattel and others of that class, would have qualified (in the Gallic sense of the term) a Compound & peculiar system with such an example of it as ours before them.

What can be more preposterous than to say that the States as united, are in no respect or degree, a Nation, which implies sovereignty, altho' acknowledged to be such by all other Nations & Sovereigns, and maintaining with them, all the in ternational relations, of war & peace, treaties, commerce, &c, and, on the other hand and at the same time, to say that the States separately are compleatly nations & sovereigns, although they can separately neither speak nor harken to any other nation, nor maintain with it any of the international relations whatever and would be disowned as Nations if presenting themselves in that character.

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?

In explaining the proceedings of Virga in 98-99, the state of things at that time was the more properly appealed to, as it has been too much overlooked. The doctrines combated are always a key to the arguments employed. It is but too common to read the expressions of a remote period thro' the modern meaning of them, & to omit guards agst misconstruction not anticipated. A few words with a prophetic gift, might have prevented much error in the glosses on those proceedings. The remark is equally applicable to the Constitution itself.

Having thrown these thoughts on paper in the midst of interruptions added to other dangers of inaccuracy, I will ask the favor of you to return the letter after perusal. I have latterly taken this liberty with more than one of my corresponding friends. And every lapse of very short periods becomes now a fresh apology for it.

Neither Mrs. M. nor myself have forgotten the promised visit which included Mrs. Rives, and we flatter ourselves the fulfilment of it, will not be very distant. Meanwhile we tender to you both our joint & affecte. salutations.

P. Script. I inclose a little pamphlet rec. a few days ago, which so well repaid my perusal, that I submit it to yours, to be returned only at your leisure. It is handsomely written, and its matter well chosen & interesting. A like task as well executed in every State wd. be of historical value; the more so as the examples might both prompt & guide researches, not as yet too late but rapidly becoming so.

The way I'm reading this, Madison first states that he wishes that Senator Rives' speech has the desired effect of convincing the various Congressmen that the Nullification Doctrines are incorrect. He then goes on to say that it seems strange to have to disprove said Doctrines, implying that he thinks their falsity should be readily apparent. He then calls the notion that the states are not united into a single nation, but are rather each independent nations and members of a league "preposterous" and notes that no other nations would ever recognize a state as an independent country in diplomacy.

This is where it gets interesting. He then flatly states that although the nullifiers play semantics with the differences between the delegation and surrender of powers, the powers granted to the federal government are essential traits of sovereignty, that the grant is necessarily implied to be perpetual, and that therefore sovereignty and nationality are transferred to the United States, and arguing otherwise is a mere semantics game. He further notes that the federal laws are "supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority," and that he can scarcely conceive of the notion that the 24 (at the time) states could possibly each purport to interpret and apply federal law that is supposed to be uniform differently from each other (which would be the result of allowing nullification).

He then proceeds to again note that the answer to the question of whether the states can simply unilaterally alter or ignore their obligations should be so obvious as to not need to be addressed, but noting that this is sadly not the case, goes on to state that the nullifiers' and secessionists' views of the Union are in error. He unequivocally states that a state of the Union may not exempt its citizens from the Union's laws. He also says that should an actual secession occur, that the state would be intimidated into backing down, because otherwise it would surely lead to war, though he is not so direct about it.

Now, the analysis of esteemed opponent #1:

The entirity of the letter shows that while Madison disliked the idea of secession of the states he still agreed with it. The first step in his opinion was nullification and if that didn't work secession would be the last resort. He also said that in the event of actual secession that it was up to the state seceding to maintain relations it had with it's former sister states in the union and to work out their differences. To say that Madison was against secession and nullification smacks right in the face of what he did with his fellow Virginians. He helped the Colony of Virginia secede three times in his life and wrote the first nullification law on the books. His actions and his words back up his position. Also Madison was a lawyer and a law maker so he knew that contracts, which he termed the Constitution like the rest of the founding fathers, could be broken only upon the injury of one of the two parties involved. That's exactly what happened when the northern states continiually violated the contract called the Constitution of the United States and the southern states tried to address these grievances prior to actual secession. The southern states under contract law had every right to rescind the contract and leave the union.

<break>

Given his record on secession and nullification by his actions alone shows this stance to be true. To deny the very thing he fought for is hypocricy. Also he talks about the state leaving violating its agreements yet his words on the federal government violating the agreement to be quite the opposite. In his Virginia Resolutions of 1797 he makes it clear that they nullified the Alien and Sedition Acts because the federal government violated the contract called the Constitution of the United States. When the central government at the behest of one section usurps the powers held by the state that is a violation of the Constitution. He fought for Virginia during the War of Independence on secession for the British crown violating the charter held by Virginia.

In the study of history, one must take all of the information and weigh it carefully. Given the facts on his actions and words as a lawmaker and lawyer one will find that his position on secession is quite clear. He agrees with it and to say otherwise it faulty because of his actions and his words on the subject. One cannot pick and choose what they like and ignore everything else. His letter that you misused to support your side is done from a logical fallacy position that runs contrary to what Mr. Madison did as a legislator, president, and lawyer. When faced with Secession by New England as president he essentially held the position that the federal government did not violate the compact and New England had no just cause to leave it. He wasn't opposed to it either because he understood that no political unions are forever.

And Esteemed Opponent #2:

...and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.

The Union has no sovereignty and America is not a nation. Madison viewed the Union as nothing more than a dynamic (one might even say fluid) association between the States.

<break>

Yeah...you completely missed what Madison was saying and put your own ideas into his words instead. Madison was a staunch Jeffersonian-republicanist; he did not believe that the Union had any sovereignty whatsoever. What he means by "reclaiming to the...Constitution" is that he hoped that people would once again realize that the notion of absolute state-sovereignty is found in the Constitution itself.

<break>

Do you not understand the syntax? The object of the action of "reclaim to the constitution" are the secessionists ideas, not the secessionists' themselves. Methinks the commas confuse you.

The last bit is what's giving me pause; it's rare for me to screw up the structure of a sentence like that, but it has happened.

So, the crux of the matter at this point lies in this sentence of the letter:

I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves, those who now Contend that the States have never parted with an Atom of their sovereignty, and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.

[Imperial Overlord]

It's quite clear to me. He's saying that the States Rights crowd has been playing games with constitutional language in trying to deny that any rights were given to the Union and he hopes that the afformentioned speach will remind people that that arguement is entirely felacious.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I would agree with you in that paragraph, but other sources I am not sure.

He's also saying that James Madison was a stauch Jeffersonian Republicanist and pro-states rights. He was the founder of the constitutionl, working with people like Hamilton to created the federalist system. The only reason Madison sided later with Repubicans was due to the alien and sedition acts and his disagreement with Hamiliton over the economy.

He didn't change his ideas on strong central government.

Elected to the Continental Congress in December 1779, Madison became a leader of the so-called nationalist group, which advocated a strong central government.

James Madison to Daniel Webster
15 Mar. 1833Writings 9:604--5

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.

it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command [Volume 1, Page 95] the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.

He's basically saying, to me, that the constitution supports revolution in extreme cases of oppression.

if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact.

It would seem to me, but I may be wrong, that he's saying the constitution we have was formed by the people in separate bodies (states), and that a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them into the original position, which was states. If it were only created by the people, they would return to a state of nature, or anarchy.

In short, James Madison is saying that the Secession from Intolerable Oppression is different from Secession at Will.

[RedImperator]

I don't know how in the world anyone could read that letter and conclude Madison meant the United States is nothing but a league of sovereign nations. Jesus, Rogue, what kind of docterinaire morons are you debating?

[Rogue 9]

I don't know how in the world anyone could read that letter and conclude Madison meant the United States is nothing but a league of sovereign nations. Jesus, Rogue, what kind of docterinaire morons are you debating?

Ones who think that, since Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution of 1797, he couldn't possibly fail to support their position. Also ones who apparently weren't made to diagram sentences when they were in school; after all, he did think that "and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality" is a statement of Madison's opinion when it is quite plainly attached to the direct object of the sentence, the nullifiers.

[Rogue 9]

This kind of doctrinaire moron:

Reclaiming the powers delegated to the federal government which is a secessionist point.

*Sigh* First off, that does not even come close to addressing my objection concerning the nature of Senator Rives' speech. Secondly, how the hey do you conclude that "the powers delegated to the federal government" is the object of the verb "reclaim" when it isn't even part of the sentence? I can't properly diagram the sentence within the limitations of the board's post format, but I'll break it down as best I can. First, the original sentence.

I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves, those who now Contend that the States have never parted with an Atom of their sovereignty, and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.

"I" -- The subject, Madison himself.
"wish" -- Action verb.
"it" -- The verb's direct object, referring to Senator Rives' speech.
"may" -- Auxiliary verb, in this context used to express a desire
"have" -- Verb, in this context corresponding to "possess."
"the effect" -- The direct object of "have," meaning the result.
"of" -- Preposition.
"reclaiming" -- Transitive verb.
"to the doctrine...by themselves" -- Indirect object of "reclaiming," describing what the direct object is being reclaimed to.
"those who now...their sovereignty" -- Direct object of "reclaiming," naming what is to be reclaimed; those persons who hold that the states never parted with sovereignty.
"and consequently" -- Sentence connector; "because of the reason given," in this case continuing on the line of what those who are to be reclaimed hold in their opinions.
"that the band...or nationality." -- Consequence of holding that the states never parted with sovereignty.

Nowhere does he name the beliefs of the Nullification Doctrine as his own and in fact states that he seeks to reclaim those who hold it to a different "doctrine and language," for if what he had in mind was not different from what they already believed, what would be the point of reclamation? To convince them to change their minds to... what they already thought? The phrase "and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality" is clearly applied as a modifier to the nullifiers' opinion, not a statement of Madison's own views, unless you think he drastically shifted topic mid-sentence without giving any indication of such and in fact tying the changed object to the previous object, which wouldn't make any sense at all.

You're ignoring the fact that they are discussing South Carolina's nullification of the 1832 tariff. Madison is saying that due to the fact the federal government does have the authority to raise money through tariffs. To him their nullifcation of the act was unjust. It still does not disprove the fact that nullification and secession were things he believed in. He did afterall sign the Virginia Resolutions and wrote the Constitution which lead to the State of Virginia to secede once again. The federal government exists on the whim of the states acting an agent of their citizens.

And he, of course, is ignoring the fact that in the discussion Madison is saying that they can't do that, but hey, what are facts next to the greatness of the broken record?

[Rogue 9]

In case anyone's interested, the thread is here: +http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtop ... &start=105 I have just issued a 24 hour limit for him to actually answer my evidence before I accept his concession.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Why do you even deal with people like that. People piss me off so badly on forums I have panic attacks.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Is he trying to argue that the states can just dissolve the union and leave for any reason?

[Rogue 9]

Why do you even deal with people like that. People piss me off so badly on forums I have panic attacks.

Because I'm just stubborn like that.

Is he trying to argue that the states can just dissolve the union and leave for any reason?

Basically... yeah. The very basic logic that the Union's laws would be unenforceable if that were the case doesn't work; he screams about how that's not written in the Constitution. I don't think Madison was counting on idiots who couldn't grasp the fact that law must be binding to be enforceable and that therefore the Constitution is binding when he wrote the Constitution.