This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1881. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... in the army are ante-dated to give the possessor a speedier chance of promotion. Nor is there, I think, any more substance in that argument, in favor of the lawfulness of secession, which is founded upon the idea of the Constitution being a mere contract, with the additional idea of Reserved Rights, --implying, in this case, the reserved right of disregarding the contract and leaving the Constitution. This is the avowed and favorite argument of two most prominent statesmen, which will serve as an excuse for my mentioning a thing so void of meaning. What contract, eveninthecornmonest jsghercs of life, can, that be, tnT contracting parties of which reseTveTnenghtof not being rulcdjbyit_at_all_? The very idea of a contract, be it of whatever kind, is that of mutual binding for some common purpose, and how this element is expected to agree with an element of reserved right of mutual injury we cannot see. Can DEGREEStliere, Jae such a thing as a reserved right of not doing aTall .what contracting parties_agrce to do?' And, let me add, if this theory of reserved right to break up the contract of government at any time be sound, and asserted in the spirit of truth, it logically follows that not only may a State leave the Union whenever it chooses, and do all sorts of things against the other States, but that, on the strength of reserved rights, each State may nullify any portion of the contract, and " resume" the power of coining money, of adopting a king, of sending ambassadors to foreign powers, of not considering the laws of the United States as the supreme laws of the land, and yet remain in the Union. There is nothing whatsoever in the argument on contract and reserved rights that makes it necessary to use secession in the bulk. Nullification was indeed founded upon the ...