The question therefore resolves itself into this, What was the agreement or compact made between the people of the States? Was it for a nation with supreme powers over the subdivisions of States in its territory and all living therein, as far as power was given to it, and for perpetuity, or was it for a confederacy or league for certain purposes, limited by the right of each of the parties to it, to judge whether the government exceeded its authority, and at its pleasure to dissolve it? In other words, the fundamental question is, Was an indissoluble national power made or a confederacy or league declared by the adopting of the Constitution? Webster perhaps unfortunately used the word compact in his argument when he said the Constitution was not a compact, meaning it was not a mere agreement amongst the States, a league, or confederacy, but that it was the fundamental declaration of a nation. Madison agreed with Webster as to secession and nullification and the powers of the General Government, and of its judiciary to define and pass on them, but he held “that the government with its powers was established by a compact which each of the States had entered into, the authority for it being derived from the same source as that of the State governments--the people.”[11] Webster himself, in his speech in answer to Calhoun, recognizes that compact may mean an agreement for a nation. Speaking of the Constitution, he says: “Founded in or on the consent of the people, it may be said to rest on compact or consent, but it is itself not the compact, but the result.”[12] It is necessary to constantly bear in mind that the word compact, used in reference to the Constitution, is consistent with its nationality. [11] See also, to same effect, _North American Review_, Oct., 1830, p. 537. Madison’s letter to Edward Everett. [12] Webster’s _Speeches_, vol. ii., ed. 1850, p. 177. The prominent writers who maintain the right of nullification and secession, Calhoun, Davis, Stephens, and Bledsoe in his work, _Is Davis a Traitor?_ all assert to an excessive length that any person or any State that uses the word compact in reference to the Constitution admits their theory of government, which is, that the Union between the States was a mere dissoluble agreement, in which the States retained their sovereignty and right of judgment over the acts done by the United States. They mention the State of Massachusetts, Washington’s, Madison’s, and even Webster’s subsequent use of that word as evidence of their assent to this doctrine. The fault in their reasoning is what logicians call the undistributed middle; they assume that the persons or States using the word compact are speaking of the sort of compact they maintain the Union to be--a league or mere dissoluble agreement, when in fact they may be, and are, speaking of another sort of compact, a compact for a national government.