<P> Donald Livingston has written that the Founders themselves held that "the states were republics, but the central government was not," and as such maintained the right to reclaim their sovereignty from "a central government limited to foreign affairs, declaring war, and regulating commerce". </P> <P> Debates on the legality of secession often looked back to the example of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence . Law professor Daniel Farber defined what he considered the borders of this debate: </P> <P> What about the original understanding? The debates contain scattered statements about the permanence or impermanence of the Union . The occasional reference to the impermanency of the Constitution are hard to interpret . They might have referred to a legal right to revoke ratification . But they equally could have referred to an extraconstitutional right of revolution, or to the possibility that a new national convention would rewrite the Constitution, or simply to the factual possibility that the national government might break down . Similarly, references to the permanency of the Union could have referred to the practical unlikelihood of withdrawal rather than any lack of legal power . The public debates seemingly do not speak specifically to whether ratification under Article VII was revocable . </P> <P> In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the separate issue of secession was also discussed . James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution . In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession": </P>

Which of the following was not one of the original seven states that seceded