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

[OpnCoronet]

You're either a New Englander or you're dripping in fear of New England. Either way, you haven't posted sources. I think this is fun, so keep running around and I'll keep learning more proof that secession was legal.

Your source of the proof of this is .... ?

As for me, the Supreme Court, says that the legality of secession without consent, is Unconstitutional(illegal) and until such time as the the People of the United States and/or their representatives or the Courts say otherwise, that ruling is part of the law of the land and to that extent, to all intents and purposes,Ironclad.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

First time in ages I've looked at this thread after I left, and all I can say is: This is still going on!

 

[American87]

As Samuel Elliot Morrison makes evident in the work you are quoting from, this "secession" you are talking about was the talk of a few extremists who did not have the support of the people of New England. He also makes clear that when Timothy Pickering (one of the Essex Junto extremists) tried to turn the Hartford Convention towards "secession", he failed.

One thing you should probably try to realize is that when the word "secession" is used back in those days it does not mean the theoretical, unilateral legal "right of secession" claimed by "the South" in 1860-61. No one started using it that way, AFAIK, until Calhoun started speaking of it around 1831.

Now, please explain what all this talk about the Hartford Convention has to do with the topic of the thread: "Is Texas v. White ironclad proof of secession's illegality?"

It was only in one case that "extremists," to use Morrison's word, proposed secession. And he does not say the people of New England rejected it; he doesn't mention popular opinion.

And yes, they are talking about unilateral secession. That's the whole point. What type of secession did you think they were proposing?

You're the one harping on the Hartford Convention. I just mentioned it, and you wanted this in depth discusson on it. So you tell me what it relates to. Why are you so bothered about New England proposing secession?

As far as I'm concerned, it's just more proof that secession was generally accepted as a matter of course before the Civil War. At that point, the Northern states opposed the secession of the South. So to answer the OP, no, Texas v. White is not ironclad proof of secession's illegality. It's only the Supreme Court's opinion, and the Chief Justice at the time was heavily biased.

 

[trice]

It was only in one case that "extremists," to use Morrison's word, proposed secession. And he does not say the people of New England rejected it; he doesn't mention popular opinion.

And yes, they are talking about unilateral secession. That's the whole point. What type of secession did you think they were proposing?

You're the one harping on the Hartford Convention. I just mentioned it, and you wanted this in depth discusson on it. So you tell me what it relates to. Why are you so bothered about New England proposing secession?

As far as I'm concerned, it's just more proof that secession was generally accepted as a matter of course before the Civil War. At that point, the Northern states opposed the secession of the South. So to answer the OP, no, Texas v. White is not ironclad proof of secession's illegality. It's only the Supreme Court's opinion, and the Chief Justice at the time was heavily biased.

Please show us an actual example of what they said. I have never seen any example of them talking about "unilateral" secession.

On Texas v. White, et al -- the Supreme Court's decision actually is the last word on a Constitutional issue in the American legal system. The Congress cannot change their decision. The President cannot change their decision. Barring an Amendment to the Constitution (an example of making new law, not changing a Supreme Court decision), the only way to change a Supreme Court decision is to have the Supreme Court reverse itself. Example: the Supreme Court's Kentucky v. Denison decision stood as settled law from the moment it was decided in early 1861 until the Supreme Court overturned it in Puerto Rico v. Branstad in 1987.

 

[trice]

General comment on how the American judicial system works and why the Supreme Court has the final word in deciding on the meaning of the law, starting with what the US Constitution itself says about the power of the Supreme Court:

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The only change ever made to that was the Eleventh Amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

That certainly gives the Supreme Court a great deal of power over the law in the United States. It hands the fate of all Cases arising under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States of America to the Supreme Court. It gives no jurisdiction at all to any other part of the Federal government.

There are two early cases that establish the doctrine of Judicial Interpretation and Judicial Review for the Supreme Court in the United States:

1. Hylton v. United States, 1796​
2. Marbury v. Madison, 1803​

However, Judicial Review had been around in the US before then. The 1787 Bayard v. Singleton case in North Carolina is said to be the first example. This method of Judicial Review in the American courts was so successful and admired that it is referred to as the "American Model". The "American Model" is implemented in a few dozen countries around the world.

Until and unless an Amendment to the Constitution is passed to change this, the Supreme Court really does have the last word on the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[Dead Parrott]

On Texas v. White, et al -- the Supreme Court's decision actually is the last word on a Constitutional issue in the American legal system. The Congress cannot change their decision. The President cannot change their decision. Barring an Amendment to the Constitution (an example of making new law, not changing a Supreme Court decision), the only way to change a Supreme Court decision is to have the Supreme Court reverse itself. Example: the Supreme Court's Kentucky v. Denison decision stood as settled law from the moment it was decided in early 1861 until the Supreme Court overturned it in Puerto Rico v. Branstad in 1987.

I don't know why anyone finds this so hard to understand.

 

[unionblue]

I don't know why anyone finds this so hard to understand.

Belief need not be subject to fact or law.

It just is.

 

[OpnCoronet]

No, you provide some sources. About 90% of what you said on the topic is wrong. Way wrong. And when asked for sources you just go on making stuff up. Even when you say the Supreme Court opinion is "part of the law of the land," a phrase that doesn't make sense, you are making stuff up. I'm gonna have to make some assumptions here, because what you're saying is in left field. But I'm assuming you believe the Supreme Court makes laws. That's because you said Supreme Court rulings are "part of the law of the land." But Congress and the President make laws. You have no idea what you're talking about. Everything you're saying is 100% emotional nonsense. Next.

and I am assuming you cannot provide sources for your claim, tht I question.

Supreme Court defines defines U.S. Laws, if there are any questions or doubts, and decides what the laws actually say, concerning any relevant case in point.

Tx. v. White, decided that since Tx had never been out of the Union, and, could never have been out of the Union without consent of the other states of the Union, that the sale of the bonds would have to be ajudicated according to United States Law, in U.S. Courts, which it was. All legal and above board.