1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

Post War Supreme Court of the US decisions regarding the non constitionality of secession

Discussion in 'Civil War History - Secession and Politics' started by jgoodguy, Jul 31, 2015.

  1. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    21,520
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. NedBaldwin

    NedBaldwin Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,933
    Location:
    California
    At a certain point, cases just become derivative of these initial ones. You used Justia as the link for 4 of the 5, any reason why not for TvW as well? Also, have you considered ordering them by date?

    Edits:
    1. Thank you for the hat tip
    2. I had the date of Hickman v Jones wrong in my post
     
    jgoodguy likes this.
  4. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    21,520
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    Tired eyes for the Justia issue. I'll make it consistent.
    Date is a good idea.
    Lets try to get the big ones, extras better than missing some. I hope to get at least one post per case also.
     
  5. NedBaldwin

    NedBaldwin Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,933
    Location:
    California
    I know you dont want opinion, but I sill want to comment on the organization and presentation of case in this thread:

    1) I think including SCOTUS decisions during the war might be beneficial -- for example I think the Prize Cases are important precedent.

    2) I think there is a curious distinction between cases that try to explain the issue (TvW for example) and ones that just make a judgement without explanation -- such as White v Cannon which states that ordinance of secession was "absolute nullity" but doesnt say why (and whats with all the cases that involve 'White'?).
     
  6. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    21,520
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    1. I expect to start threads on pre Civil War, during the Civil War and State cases later.
    2. That is the purpose of posts about the cases-to discuss those types of issues.
    3. This is more lay person than professional academic in its anticipated audience and execution.
     
    NedBaldwin likes this.
  7. NedBaldwin

    NedBaldwin Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,933
    Location:
    California
    Explanation appreciated. If you want to keep this thread focused, I dont mind if you delete this sequence of posts.
     
    jgoodguy likes this.
  8. NedBaldwin

    NedBaldwin Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,933
    Location:
    California
    • White v Cannon, 1867: "That ordinance [of secession] was an absolute nullity, and of itself alone, neither affected the jurisdiction of that court or its relation to the appellate power of this Court." No further explanation.
     
    jgoodguy likes this.
  9. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    21,520
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    Mauran v. Insurance Company - Wikisource,

    Mauran v. Insurance Company, 6 Wallace, 14. (1867-8.)
    from free ebook War Powers Under the Constitution of the United States:

     
  10. NedBaldwin

    NedBaldwin Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,933
    Location:
    California
    White v Hart

    This case came later than the others. However it is notable for the language used in explaining secession/rebellion, and especially in the use of the 't' word:

    'The national Constitution was, as its preamble recites, ordained and established by the people of the United States. It created not a confederacy of states, but a government of individuals. It assumed that the government and the Union which it created, and the states which were incorporated into the Union, would be indestructible and perpetual, and as far as human means could accomplish such a work, it intended to make them so. The government of the nation and the government of the states are each alike absolute and independent of each other in their respective spheres of action, but the former is as much a part of the government of the people of each state, and as much entitled to their allegiance and obedience as their own local state governments -- "the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof," being in all cases where they apply, the supreme law of the land. For all the purposes of the national government, the people of the United States are an integral, and not a composite mass, and their unity and identity, in this view of the subject, are not affected by their segregation by state lines for the purposes of state government and local administration. Considered in this connection, the states are organisms for the performance of their appropriate functions in the vital system of the larger polity, of which, in this aspect of the subject, they form a part, and which would perish if they were all stricken from existence or ceased to perform their allotted work. The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence. The late rebellion was without any element of right or sanction of law. The duration and magnitude of the war did not change its character.' In some respects it was not unlike the insurrection of a county or other municipal subdivision of territory against the state to which it belongs. In such cases, the state has inherently the right to use all the means necessary to put down the resistance to its authority and restore peace, order and obedience to law.'
     
    demiurge, unionblue and jgoodguy like this.
  11. NedBaldwin

    NedBaldwin Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,933
    Location:
    California
    Williams v Bruffy, though coming even later (1877), might be a good one to include due to its language about legal vs 'de facto' existence and also about how the outcome affects legality.
     
    unionblue likes this.
  12. DanF

    DanF Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    5,701
    Lamar v. Micou, the Court ruled, "The so-called Confederate government was in no sense a lawful government, but was a mere government of force, having its origin and foundation in rebellion against the United States." [112 US 452. 476]
     
    LibertyAndUnion and jgoodguy like this.
  13. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    21,520
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    List updated to reflect this.
     

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

Share This Page


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