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

Rusk County Avengers

Captain
Muster Stunt Master Stones River / Franklin 2022
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Location
Coffeeville, TX
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.
 
Back
Top