Restricted Debate Is Texas v. White ironclad proof of secession's illegality?


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,549
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#24
l.
Ah Luther v. Borden, I've always felt its citing where the CW is concerned is irrelevant as the South wasn't governed by colonial charters before the CW, and the Reconstruction era governments imposed on the South could be ate up with so much corruption and intrigue to hardly be called an instance of Congress guaranteeing a republican form of government. But that's me.

I guess what I'm saying is it can be argued that the case of the South's secession was an entirely different happening than the Dorr Rebellion. I won't pretend to know a whole lot of the Dorr Rebellion, but it being an issue of voting rights and overturning Rhode Island's colonial charter in favor of a modern republican form of government, whereas in the South's case a revolution happened on a stage far larger than the borders of one State, and far larger implications.
The interesting finding of Luther v Borden was that it is the political arms of the United States-President and Congress determine political questions like what State government to recognize. That looms large in Reconstruction. Sticking to the topic it means IMHO, that SCOTUS will not rule on Secession as a political decision. I see a future court using Texas v White as precedent if secession was successful or not. One of my pet theories is that secession is always not Constitutional because there is no Constitutional way out.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,356
#26
The statuus of the Union, had to be determined before the authority of the Supreme Courtto adjudicate the issue of Tx. v. White. could be determined.

The rulings of the SC have the force of Law and like all laws can be changed, amended or overturned. Certains aspects of the original ruling had been so changed but not on the status off the Union, it is still part of the law of the land.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,533
#27
I personally tend to steer clear of the topic of secession' legal status, and political discussions of the War period. Emotional attachment on both sides of the argument, unbending attitudes, a habit of modern politics infecting thought of the contenders and their conclusions, and finally outright baiting of people tends to dispel any thought of my part in participating, most of time because I don't care for being angry. But in the interest of seeing if calm debate can be had, after seeing yet another thread with passions running high, I wish to put out there a thought, on Texas v. White that people on one side claims as irrefutable proof of their point of view, and the other side fumbles to answer it. Here in this thread I'm not making my personal answers plain, and am just presenting a theory to see how the different sides of secession argument answer it, I may throw something out for digestion, but as of right now I want to observe, if you will. I'm not "trolling" or deliberately trying to start arguments where tempers flare, I'm simply curious as to everyone else's thoughts.

Texas v. White

I sometimes wonder how many people on either side of the debate of secession have actually sat down, read the whole thing and understood it, or how many people have sat down read it, and saw the clever legal shenanigan it can be interpreted as. Its conclusions are made abundantly clear, but reading that often argued over document, I can help but notice that it contradicts itself. Before any thoughts are given to saying one contradiction is irrelevant I'd like to point out in politics, in any era, one line of a document can be twisted in any direction to serve the person twisting it. Moving along and getting to the point I submit before the reader one little part of it.

"6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation except through revolution or the consent of the States."

That one line, or even just the word "except" can be used to change the views of others, and be used to subvert the rest of the document and even say secession was legal because the way it was carried out. I'm not saying it does, just that it can be interpreted that way. The reason I say that is because of the word "revolution". Later in Texas v. White, it spells out the exact sequence of events leading to secession, this may be over simplifying it, but Texas called a secession convention, and voted for secession, and submitted it to the people to vote on it, which the majority of Texans voted for secession. The twist is, isn't that a revolution and therefore legalizing the secession of Texas?

The dictionary definition for revolution, specifically the Merriam-Webster definition 2-b is:
": a fundamental change in a political organization
especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed

Is that not what happened? Both sides of the "Compact of States in the Constitution" vs. "Compact of the Union with the people" crowds of political and historical thought can find something here to either sink their argument or float it. The duly elected representatives of the people voted for secession and then submitted it to the people who voted for secession, so did not a revolution in the relationship between the governed and existing government happen? Does this not give the secession of the Southern United States a legal standing, albeit few years after the fact? I'm curious to see where this thread goes...

Reminder I am not making my views plain, I'm presenting a theory to see where it goes.
The "revolution" being spoken about would be the Natural Right of Revolution. That is the "right" to try to get what you want by methods outside the law. If you try and win, you do get what you want. If you try and lose, you get whatever the other side wants to exact from you in reprisal for your attempt. Texas tried and Texas lost.

Also please note that the call for secession in Texas was illegally done under Texas law.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,533
#29
Last time I checked, at the time under the then Constitution it wasn't illegal. Sam Houston's actions were more illegal when he tried to stifle the secession crisis.
The legislature was out of session and so the call could not be issued. The secessionists called a convention anyway, began organizing it without authority, trying to stampede the process without legal process. In short, they just did not want to wait.

Houston eventually called for a special session when it became obvious the convention was happening anyway, legal or not. The legislature then turned over their functions to the convention.

Here's an overview from the Handbook of Texas Online run by the Texas State Historical Association:
Secession could not be halted because public pressure became too great. Whether it was because the danger to slavery that Texans associated with the Republican party threatened the economy or because white Texans could not tolerate any move toward racial equality with black Texans, secession became an exceptionally charged issue. The emotion came to a head in late January and early February 1861, when a convention met in Austin and voted to secede. Pressure to call a convention to consider the issue began in October 1860, when it became apparent that Abraham Lincoln would be elected to the presidency. In Texas only the governor could call the legislature into special session, however, and only the legislature could call a convention. Houston refused to act and hoped that with time the ardor for secession would cool. Realizing that the governor would not act, Oran M. Roberts, chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, John S. Ford, and several other prominent Texans took the law into their own hands. Starting around December 3, before South Carolina officially seceded, they printed calls in several Texas newspapers for the election, on January 8, 1861, of delegates to a convention to consider secession. The elections were to be supervised by the county judges of the state, and the convention was to meet on January 28. Once it was clear that some sort of secession convention would meet, Houston convened the legislature in mid-January, with the hope that it would declare the convention illegal. Instead, legislators validated the calling of a convention, turned over the House chambers to the convention, and adjourned.
Though the election of delegates needed all the legitimacy the Texas legislature could give it, existing evidence indicates that the election procedures did not meet even the low standards of the day. Delegates were often elected by voice votes at public meetings. Unionists were discouraged from attending such meetings or chose to ignore the process because they considered it illegal. As a result the delegates disproportionally favored secession. The delegates were in some ways a typical cross section of the free male population of the state. Their average age was about forty, and almost all had been born in slaveholding states. They were slightly wealthier than the average Texan, but the great planters and merchants of the state did not dominate the convention. Two significant components, however, distinguished the convention from the population as a whole-lawyers, who made up 40 percent of the membership, and slaveholders, who constituted 70 percent.

As to how this worked out, that same source says this:
For some individuals and in some counties of Texas, however, the secession referendum was far from insignificant. Opposition to secession during the referendum campaign was concentrated in counties along the northern border of the state and in a circle of counties surrounding Austin. Leaders such as Throckmorton and Benjamin H. Epperson in North Texas and Elisha M. Pease, Svante Palm, and George Paschal of Austin led the regional fights against secession. Houston continued to question the necessity and wisdom of leaving the Union. United States representative Andrew J. Hamilton, another citizen of Austin, also spoke against secession. Opposition to the measure exhibited three notable traits. First, it persisted in areas culturally, geographically, and economically unlike the lower South. Second, the status and number of its leaders encouraged the weak at heart and the apolitical to vote against secession. Third, in all these areas Unionist leaders often had left the Democratic party in the late 1850s or never had belonged to that party. In contrast, the approximately one in four counties where over 95 percent of the vote was cast for secession were strongly linked to the lower South, had no outspoken critics of secession, and had very strong Democratic party organizations that facilitated secession. In these counties there is evidence of violence and intimidation of Unionists during January and February of 1861. Few opponents of secession spoke out on the eve of the secession referendum. Most probably did not vote.
On February 23, 1861, Texas went to the polls and voted for or against secession. The results for the state as a whole were 46,153 for and 14,747 against. Of the 122 counties casting votes only eighteen cast majorities against secession. Only eleven others cast as much as 40 percent of their vote against. Not surprisingly, almost all of these twenty-nine counties were located in the two areas where the campaign had been the most open and the Unionist leadership had high status and good organization. With a touch of drama the secession of the state became official on March 2, Texas Independence Day. On March 5 the Secession Convention reassembled and took further steps to join the Confederacy. Among these was the writing of a new state constitution. The Constitution of 1861 differed little from that of 1845, but it did clearly place slavery within the bounds of the law, and it made it illegal to free any slave in Texas. All current state officials were obligated to take an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy. This marked the end of the long political career of Sam Houston. In addition to his persistent opposition to secession, the hero of San Jacinto considered the drafting of a constitution and the joining of the state to the Confederacy without extensive public debate and another public referendum to be unconstitutional. Therefore, he refused to take the oath of loyalty, though he did later support the South in the war. The convention delegates declared the office of governor vacant and put Lieutenant Governor Edward Clark in Houston's place. On March 26 the convention adjourned. Texans had chosen to secede from the Union. The stage was set for them to fight and lose a bloody civil war.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
1,076
Location
Coffeeville, TX
#30
The legislature was out of session and so the call could not be issued. The secessionists called a convention anyway, began organizing it without authority, trying to stampede the process without legal process. In short, they just did not want to wait.

Houston eventually called for a special session when it became obvious the convention was happening anyway, legal or not. The legislature then turned over their functions to the convention.
As your own source states, Oran Roberts and John Ford printed calls for a secession convention and election of representatives, and Houston called the Legislature into session to sack the two and instead they basically validated their actions.

It wasn't necessarily gonna happen or not, its more likely Roberts and Ford were maneuvering Houston into making that mistake on his part as it was safe to say what direction the Legislature would go and that Houston couldn't see it, (he rarely saw past his own ego). Plus secession was validated legally through a referendum where the vast majority of voters voted for it, at a ballot box. Voice votes for delegates was also pretty irrelevant as the actual approval for secession was turned over to Texas voters, and there was many who voted to stay in the Union, just look at the results, so while anti-Union sentiment was high, its quite apparent a lot of folks voted Union. Plus the notion of a lot, or even the majority of Texas being against secession as some claim is itself absurd, one just need to look to the number of Texans who served in the Confederate military, (most sources estimate almost 90,000 an overwhelming number for that notion given the Texas population), and one can also take a look at Reconstruction-era Texas to see that basic logic renders such notions of a suppressed Union majority, or even an evenly divided sentiment baseless. Especially if 14,747 were able to vote against secession. Texas was divided, no doubt about it, but the evidence points the majority supporting secession.

Feel free to look up the history of Sam Houston's relationship with Texas voters, to see my where I'm headed, it was a relationship where Houston would promise to take one stance and as soon as sworn in he'd do the opposite, and Texas voters would turn on him. It had been a love-hate relationship ever since the Republic of Texas days, (the Texas Archive War is a good example), and as a result these kind of things would happen.

But that and how Texas seceded in 1861 legality is outside of the discussion of this thread, this is on Texas v. White and the avenue it said secession could happen and how one of the two ways it said was followed by none other than Texas with a referendum (revolution text book definition even if not successful in the long run). While an interesting and stimulating debate, discussing the Texas Secession Crisis in 1861 and its legality under the Texas Constitution in 1861 and so forth is outside of this thread's aim, and really irrelevant here as the Texas Legislature itself took action to make it legal under the Texas Constitution of that time, and a subject with enough happenings to deserve of a thread on its own, not this one.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,356
#31
One can interpret the law as one will, but, it is not wise to break any laws in doing so, i.e., do what the laws expressly sas, not what ou think it says(in case of doubt, seek clarification from competent sources).

Tx. v. White clarafited the issue of the legality of secession, order to render a decision on the case at hand.
 

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,506
Location
Connecticut
#32
I personally tend to steer clear of the topic of secession' legal status, and political discussions of the War period. Emotional attachment on both sides of the argument, unbending attitudes, a habit of modern politics infecting thought of the contenders and their conclusions, and finally outright baiting of people tends to dispel any thought of my part in participating, most of time because I don't care for being angry. But in the interest of seeing if calm debate can be had, after seeing yet another thread with passions running high, I wish to put out there a thought, on Texas v. White that people on one side claims as irrefutable proof of their point of view, and the other side fumbles to answer it. Here in this thread I'm not making my personal answers plain, and am just presenting a theory to see how the different sides of secession argument answer it, I may throw something out for digestion, but as of right now I want to observe, if you will. I'm not "trolling" or deliberately trying to start arguments where tempers flare, I'm simply curious as to everyone else's thoughts.

Texas v. White

I sometimes wonder how many people on either side of the debate of secession have actually sat down, read the whole thing and understood it, or how many people have sat down read it, and saw the clever legal shenanigan it can be interpreted as. Its conclusions are made abundantly clear, but reading that often argued over document, I can help but notice that it contradicts itself. Before any thoughts are given to saying one contradiction is irrelevant I'd like to point out in politics, in any era, one line of a document can be twisted in any direction to serve the person twisting it. Moving along and getting to the point I submit before the reader one little part of it.

"6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation except through revolution or the consent of the States."

That one line, or even just the word "except" can be used to change the views of others, and be used to subvert the rest of the document and even say secession was legal because the way it was carried out. I'm not saying it does, just that it can be interpreted that way. The reason I say that is because of the word "revolution". Later in Texas v. White, it spells out the exact sequence of events leading to secession, this may be over simplifying it, but Texas called a secession convention, and voted for secession, and submitted it to the people to vote on it, which the majority of Texans voted for secession. The twist is, isn't that a revolution and therefore legalizing the secession of Texas?

The dictionary definition for revolution, specifically the Merriam-Webster definition 2-b is:
": a fundamental change in a political organization
especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed

Is that not what happened? Both sides of the "Compact of States in the Constitution" vs. "Compact of the Union with the people" crowds of political and historical thought can find something here to either sink their argument or float it. The duly elected representatives of the people voted for secession and then submitted it to the people who voted for secession, so did not a revolution in the relationship between the governed and existing government happen? Does this not give the secession of the Southern United States a legal standing, albeit few years after the fact? I'm curious to see where this thread goes...

Reminder I am not making my views plain, I'm presenting a theory to see where it goes.
How Do RCA,

I think you’re having trouble with a point I once had a great deal of trouble with. But a revolution, as that word is used by the Court, is a successful rebellion. The Confederates never achieved that. Take your Webster's definition for example: the original government is not overthrown until it is beaten and gives up the struggle. And the Court is not saying revolution is a legal means of withdrawing from the Union. They are simply saying it is an effective means of doing so.

Also keep in mind, the status of the bonds is the crux of the decision. In other words, 1) TX's sale of the bonds is not illegal if it was out of the Union when it sold the bonds. Furthermore, 2) SCOTUS did not have original jurisdiction if TX was not a state of the Union at the time of the suite. The Court's decision is that TX was a state of the Union from the time it joined the Union to the present (the time the decision was issued) because: a) unilateral secession is not constitutional (therefore TX was not out of the Union upon issuing an ordinance of secession), b) TX, of course, did not obtain consent, and c) TX never achieved revolution. Therefore, the Court had jurisdiction and the sale of the bonds was illegal. The Court spends most of its time/discussion with a) because 1) was one of the defendant's arguments, and includes b) and c) because 2) was another one of the defendant's arguments (i.e. they claimed TX was conquered territory, rather than a state, at the time of the suite).
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
1,076
Location
Coffeeville, TX
#33
How Do RCA,

I think you’re having trouble with a point I once had a great deal of trouble with. But a revolution, as that word is used by the Court, is a successful rebellion. The Confederates never achieved that. Take your Webster's definition for example: the original government is not overthrown until it is beaten and gives up the struggle. And the Court is not saying revolution is a legal means of withdrawing from the Union. They are simply saying it is an effective means of doing so.

Also keep in mind, the status of the bonds is the crux of the decision. In other words, 1) TX's sale of the bonds is not illegal if it was out of the Union when it sold the bonds. Furthermore, 2) SCOTUS did not have original jurisdiction if TX was not a state of the Union at the time of the suite. The Court's decision is that TX was a state of the Union from the time it joined the Union to the present (the time the decision was issued) because: a) unilateral secession is not constitutional (therefore TX was not out of the Union upon issuing an ordinance of secession), b) TX, of course, did not obtain consent, and c) TX never achieved revolution. Therefore, the Court had jurisdiction and the sale of the bonds was illegal. The Court spends most of its time/discussion with a) because 1) was one of the defendant's arguments, and includes b) and c) because 2) was another one of the defendant's arguments (i.e. they claimed TX was conquered territory, rather than a state, at the time of the suite).
Not necessarily completely true on the overthrown part, and I respectfully disagree on your point that the court was just saying its effective, but no really legal.

For four years the Federal Government had no say or power over the State of Texas as a whole, (though Federal forces did gain control of small areas) and Texas did stay outside of U.S. control at the government level and really most of the State for four years, so while unsuccessful, I think its safe to say a revolution happened, even if in a short term period, especially since there was a functioning government on the South's part till the end. To me the "might makes right" argument only applies if the revolutionary faction never forms a government and is squashed within say a month, but for four years, a government eh, the time and organization renders that argument null. But that's me.

Of course this is a legal discussion and inevitably there is always another twisting of events that can be put forward to say the initial overthrow was a hundred percent successful...

After Texas seceded it didn't automatically become part of the Confederacy, it like the other six original Confederate States were, self styled as independent. It was as "independent" States that the original seven Confederate States met and then created the Confederacy, and it was the Confederacy that initiated a War with the United States and vice versa. So it can be said the initial revolution was successful, as the Confederacy wasn't formed before or during secession, but afterwards and the so-called independent States that formed from secession 1861 didn't exist when war/insurrection was declared and weren't the same revolutionary states in 1865, and their intial secession was never stopped and so on, so thus it can be a successful revolution performed. But that's just one of the many certain points of view it can be looked at from, "legal shenanigans" are interesting things.

Thank you for your reasonable response.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,356
#34
The Court found that the Union of States under their Constitution and laws was indissoluable and permanent. There was/is no way a state or any subunits of them to withdraw from their Union with all the other states in their Union, except through the always illegal process of rebellion/insurrection or the legal process provided under the Constitution.

The Court presented evidence that the Union under their Constitution was, and was meant to be, Perpetual. Where is the same kind of evidence, that this was not true?
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
1,076
Location
Coffeeville, TX
#35
The Court found that the Union of States under their Constitution and laws was indissoluable and permanent. There was/is no way a state or any subunits of them to withdraw from their Union with all the other states in their Union, except through the always illegal process of rebellion/insurrection or the legal process provided under the Constitution.

The Court presented evidence that the Union under their Constitution was, and was meant to be, Perpetual. Where is the same kind of evidence, that this was not true?
@OpnCoronet this line from the original post:

When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation except through revolution or the consent of the States."
It doesn't say "unless" or "through illegal means", or "if" it says "except" and my reading of the law, and indeed something most lawyers will say is "except" means legal.

The problem with Texas v. White is the Supreme Court goes on to say neither happened, when the historical record is pretty plain that a revolution happened in Texas more than some other Southern States as I recall not all Southern States had a referendum. In short it contradicts itself, and some could even say shows the Court to be compromised and biased at this time in history. The CW and its aftermath was a fractious and divided time as far as I'm concerned there's no way anyone on any side wouldn't be compromised, it's simple human nature.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
1,076
Location
Coffeeville, TX
#36
Well the answer to the question I was looking for in this thread, whether anyone of the politics forum could change their minds on which side their entrenched in and agree with the other side seems to be answered and or get along. The good folks who participated in this thread have my thanks, and I for one am pleased how civil this has gone, but the silence of so many who "fight" over this subject was also an answer to my curiosity.

But thus far minds have met and mostly agreed to disagree without much rancor, and folks who love a good fight honored my intention to see this not devolve into a keyboard "shouting match" I felt the subject of this thread's material could incite. I suppose there's hope for us all on this subject lol. Although I can't help but wonder if the new order of things is a contributor.

But I must admit through my playing "devil's advocate" as one could call it, my views are apparent. Not my intention when I started this thread but the discussion had to go forward, and I think some healthy answers on Texas v. White have been forward by both sides of the debate.

Hopefully this a thread that can be learned from.
 
Joined
May 12, 2018
Messages
247
#37
To me it seems that, using your definition of “revolution”, secession does not fit. There was no “replacement” of government going on there whatsoever, just one portion of the government attempting to leave the Union unilateraly which would be illegal. The Government of the State of Texas, acting as part of the larger federal government, was unchanged so there was no “revolution”.

It should be said though that even were there a true revolution under the dictionary definition of the term, it would definitely be “treason” as defined by the ruling on Burr’s case... and that includes some more peaceful forms of resistance since that case also ruled that actually possessing arms was not necessary for one to commit treason, just a use of force to interfere with the US Government’s regular operations (provided one gathers enough people to be a credible threat, a 100 man unarmed mob against say a single person trying to defend a federal armory for example). Weirdly, I think depending on how state laws are written there could be different cases of treason against ones state, which in some places may or may not be a crime... I think in some southern states it is/was since if I recall correctly that was one of the charges that Kentucky arrested Burr under. Something to be considered when looking at the choices people made when faced with succession in their home state.
 
Last edited:

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,533
#38
As your own source states, Oran Roberts and John Ford printed calls for a secession convention and election of representatives, and Houston called the Legislature into session to sack the two and instead they basically validated their actions.

It wasn't necessarily gonna happen or not, its more likely Roberts and Ford were maneuvering Houston into making that mistake on his part as it was safe to say what direction the Legislature would go and that Houston couldn't see it, (he rarely saw past his own ego). Plus secession was validated legally through a referendum where the vast majority of voters voted for it, at a ballot box. Voice votes for delegates was also pretty irrelevant as the actual approval for secession was turned over to Texas voters, and there was many who voted to stay in the Union, just look at the results, so while anti-Union sentiment was high, its quite apparent a lot of folks voted Union. Plus the notion of a lot, or even the majority of Texas being against secession as some claim is itself absurd, one just need to look to the number of Texans who served in the Confederate military, (most sources estimate almost 90,000 an overwhelming number for that notion given the Texas population), and one can also take a look at Reconstruction-era Texas to see that basic logic renders such notions of a suppressed Union majority, or even an evenly divided sentiment baseless. Especially if 14,747 were able to vote against secession. Texas was divided, no doubt about it, but the evidence points the majority supporting secession.

Feel free to look up the history of Sam Houston's relationship with Texas voters, to see my where I'm headed, it was a relationship where Houston would promise to take one stance and as soon as sworn in he'd do the opposite, and Texas voters would turn on him. It had been a love-hate relationship ever since the Republic of Texas days, (the Texas Archive War is a good example), and as a result these kind of things would happen.

But that and how Texas seceded in 1861 legality is outside of the discussion of this thread, this is on Texas v. White and the avenue it said secession could happen and how one of the two ways it said was followed by none other than Texas with a referendum (revolution text book definition even if not successful in the long run). While an interesting and stimulating debate, discussing the Texas Secession Crisis in 1861 and its legality under the Texas Constitution in 1861 and so forth is outside of this thread's aim, and really irrelevant here as the Texas Legislature itself took action to make it legal under the Texas Constitution of that time, and a subject with enough happenings to deserve of a thread on its own, not this one.
I was only discussing it because you seemed to be asking. It still seems highly questionable under Texas law to me.

Texas v. White is clear. Unilateral secession by a state is not permitted, which is why Texas never left the Union under US law. Revolution, the other alternative, is an extra-legal measure where might-makes-right: Texas lost.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,533
#39
The dictionary definition for revolution, specifically the Merriam-Webster definition 2-b is:
": a fundamental change in a political organization
especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
Here is the definition you are referring to in the 1864 Merriam-Webster dictionary:
"7. (Politics) The act of renouncing the authority of a government; a revolt successfully or completely accomplished; a fundamental change in political organization."
Assuming the Court was using a Merriam-Webster definition, this is what it would have been at the time of the court case.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,356
#40
The Court ruled that there were only (the Union was and always was and, was meant to be, Perpetual) two ways of secession, revolution, since the rebellion failed of completion(Revolution) ... a moot point, or consultation with the other states of the Union, which failed for lack of exercise. There was No contradiction.

Inany event, the Court's Ruling hinges on whether the Union of States were, and, were meant to be Perpetual. The Logic of the Court follows from that premise to the reasonable conclusions it arrived at from the Logical steps that the Court described in its decision to its reasonable decision.

The Courts premise may be wrong, of course, buut, where is the evidence for that?
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top