Part 1b to be read with part 1a As James Madison states in the Federalist "It is an established doctrine on the subjuct of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach commited by either of the parties absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the Federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted?" Since in a dispute between two sides, one party cannot also be the Judge, it is up to the parties to judge for themselves the merits of their case. As of the admission of Kentucky in 1799, it was declared that the United States was the result of a compact between the states to which each accended as a state; that it possessed only delegated powers, of which it was not the exclusive or final judge; and that, as in all cases of compact among parties having no common judge, "each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." In plain english, the United States cannot be a judge & plaintif. The same standard would still be in effect today. What this all boils down to is that the founders established a way out of any Constitution. Since the Southern states followed the perscribed path for secession, They were not guilty of insurection. They misjudged the North's unwillingness to let them go.
