Footnote 98:[ (return) ]
Ibid., p. 914.
Footnote 99:[ (return) ]
Elliott's "Debates," vol. ii, p. 199.
Footnote 100:[ (return) ]
Ibid., pp. 232, 233.
Footnote 101:[ (return) ]
Elliott's "Debates," vol. iii, p. 117.
Footnote 102:[ (return) ]
"Congressional Debates," vol. ix, Part I, p. 566.
Footnote 103:[ (return) ]
"Federalist," No. lix.
CHAPTER XIII.
Some Objections considered.—The New States.—Acquired Territory.—Allegiance, false and true.—Difference between Nullification and Secession.—Secession a Peaceable Remedy.—No Appeal to Arms.—Two Conditions noted.
It would be only adding to a superabundance of testimony to quote further from the authors of the Constitution in support of the principle, unquestioned in that generation, that the people who granted—that is to say, of course, the people of the several States—might resume their grants. It will require but few words to dispose of some superficial objections that have been made to the application of this doctrine in a special case.
It is sometimes said that, whatever weight may attach to principles founded on the sovereignty and independence of the original thirteen States, they can not apply to the States of more recent origin—constituting now a majority of the members of the Union—because these are but the offspring or creatures of the Union, and must of course be subordinate and dependent.