Madison's reply to Lincoln

Today is Constitution Day, the 221st anniversary of its signing by men from thirteen very diverse states, who determined that a written Constitution provided the best guarantee of liberty and safety for the new United States.

The Ohio Republic frequently refers to the Constitution of the United States. Some may object that we have made an idol out of a "scrap of paper." If you have not read the Constitution lately, I strongly urge you to do so. It is not a lengthy document, and can be read in about an hour. Take particular note of the defined powers and limitations imposed on the Federal Government by Article I, Sections 8 and 9; and of the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10). Reflect on what the Founders defined, and how far we have strayed from their vision.

I would like to celebrate the day with some excerpts from Federalist #39, written by James Madison, which refutes a commonly-held view, popularized by Abraham Lincoln, that the Constitution was a contract between the people and the Federal Government alone; and not also one between the States and the Federal Government [Emphasis in italics Madison's, in underline mine]:

"...[I]t appears, on one hand, that the constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the DISTINCT and INDEPENDENT States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each state--the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act...

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered to be a sovereign body independent of all others, and is only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national constitution...

"..[T]he proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects..."

If, therefore, the states are viewed as distinct and independent, and are, by their ratification of the Consitution bound by their own voluntary act, it logically follows that such states can lawfully terminate that union by secession. Otherwise, the States are not independent, and the act that was voluntary for one generation would bind all future ones, therefore becoming involuntary for the succeeding generations.