Nullify Chapter 23: James Madison’s 1830 Letter
Articles,  Blog

Nullify Chapter 23: James Madison’s 1830 Letter


Some people say an 1830 letter from James Madison proves he opposed nullification in all situations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Writing to Edward Everett , the “Father of the Constitution” used phrases like “overturn the first principle of free government” and “speedily put an end to the Union itself.” Most modern commentators and legal experts claim Madison was talking about nullification with a broad stroke. Because of this, they also claim nullification is always wrong, and should never be used, in any form. FACT: They’re either ignorant. Or lying. Everett asked Madison about a nullification doctrine proposed by John C. Calhoun for the State of South Carolina. In order to understand Madison’s response, though, we must first understand Calhoun’s proposal, which covered three main points. 1. A State could “declare an act of Congress null and void” That declaration would be “conclusive” and the feds would have no legal right to enforce its view. 2. After the state exercised this right, the federal government would have a duty to immediately abandon enforcement of the act, at least in that single state. 3. If the federal government disagreed, it would have to apply to the other states for approval. And only if 3/4 of the states supported the federal act, would the nullifying state lose. History and text both reveal the truth about this doctrine. It was never proposed or discussed by the Founders at the Constitutional Convention. It was never debated in any of the state ratifying conventions. It was simply made up by John C. Calhoun. James Madison rightly rejected it. But his rejection was of this specific doctrine. Writing to Everett, he called it “the expedient lately advanced.” And later in his Notes on Nullification, he again rejected this specific “doctrine of South Carolina.” Claiming Madison’s rejection of John Calhoun’s bastardized, made-up, South Carolina version of nullification meant he rejected nullification in every situation is a lie. That’s like calling a “no dessert before dinner” rule for your kids, the same as telling them they can’t eat at all.

4 Comments

  • Tenth Amendment Center

    TAC memberships help us create more educational tools like this. Will you join us? http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members

  • chevy6299

    That makes sense now. I never had the time to research this and just figured he was old a senile when he wrote the letter. The way you explained it made total sense, thanks.

  • Mark-A-Billy

    I read through the letter a while back, dissected it, and came to the conclusion that he was against nullification in 1830. Your observation is excellent, pointing out that he was against this specific "bastardized" concept of nullification. Reviewing that 1830 letter and the Virginia Resolution of 1798, it still appears he may have actually believed in 1798 that the next step was for the states to work together on some kind of effort to stop an out-of-control federal government. His concept of interposition still appears to be more limited than Jefferson's concept of nullification. What does it mean to me? Call me a "Jeffersonian," rather than a "Madisonian," or at least not a follower of Madison in his later years. The real bottom line here is the same: the states should be actively nullifying their "servant's" unconstitutional dictates.

  • ArmoredNinja

    So Calhoun's proposal was that the federal government's disagreement with a state's nullification of a fed law was to needed be backed by 3/4 th of the states.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *