General Grant in his book on the Civil War

General Grant in his book on the Civil War wrote that the Constitution does not forbid succession nor allow it. From that fact I would say that, therefore the Federal Government can not go against it because the federal government has only enumerated powers. But Grant himself did not draw that conclusion but rather wrote that since the idea of succession was not stated in the constitution therefore the Country founded on the Constitution state has the right of self-defense. What I think this brings forth is the question of how different politics I different from civil law between individuals. In mean in individuals, what I written in a contract is exactly what I there, nothing more or less—unless things are unclear. And if that would be applied to the constitution then this issue Is not ambiguous, I clearly stated that the government ha only enumerated powers. How however politic in terms of nation states is different from civil law between individuals. How much so and why I unclear to me. In the tradition of England [upon which the American concept of government I based] a written document of the government is absolutely binding. But if you look at countries like the Ussr, contracts are approximate indication of intention, but what matters is the individual in power