Partly National, Partly Federal

Colleen Sheehan, Professor of Political Science at Villanova, has a great essay at Liberty Forum on James Madison, the Principles of 1798, and the theory of Nullification.  Sheehan argues that unlike Jefferson, who she says did argue for something similar to what John C. Calhoun would later champion in the nullification controversy in the the 1830s, James Madison "forcefully but carefully set forth his arguments in the Virginia Resolutions, charging the national government with violating the most fundamental principles of liberty, but simultaneously declaring Virginia’s membership in and sincere attachment to the Union of the American states."

Sheehan on Madison's thoughts on the composition of the Union:

According to James Madison, the sovereign people of America did not create a confederacy of sovereign states nor did they create a unitary national government.  Instead, they thoughtfully and very deliberately created a compound federal republican polity.[16]  Those who would deny the compound nature of our partly federal, partly national political system would necessarily convert it into one wholly federal or wholly consolidated.  All who are friends of free government, Madison pleaded, must see that this is tantamount to aiming “a deadly blow at the last hope of true liberty on the face of the Earth.”

For Madison, whose Virginia Resolution never mentioned the word nullification, single states could not annul federal law.  Instead, the resolution was aimed at ginning up public antipathy towards the now notorious Alien and Sedition Acts, enacted by the administration of John Adams.  Contrary to Jefferson (and there is still some question in my mind whether Jefferson truly believed in something like single state nullification), Madison reasoned that republican government was grounded on the consent of the people, the same people who created both the state and federal governments.  

Madison's Report of 1800 and his letter to Edward Everett make clear that he did not believe he was arguing for nullification and, ultimately, secession.  This really needs to be understood, especially by Tea Partiers and others who have been reading too many books by Paleocons that talk of the compatibility between nullification and secession and the principles of the American Founding.