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

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)


Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Aug 17, 2011
Birmingham, Alabama
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.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)