Texas vs White , a double edged sword

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

Independence

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
730
Location
Tennessee
If Texas vs White is to be taken seriously,as of April 12,1869,should the whole idea of reconstruction been outlawed by the supreme court? If according to T. vs W. States are States period,and had always been States,should not have elections with full voting rights been held? Does the 14th amendment disqualification clause fall to the T v W judgement.

It appears the the federal government was trying to have it both ways,stating in T v W that the States were always States and had never left the union and were indistructable,but the on the other hand rejecting the elected congressmen from certain States and declaring that certain States are military districts subject to control of congress.
 

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
This has been explained to you before. A state is an area of land. The states, in the northern view, never left the Union. What left the Union were the elected representatives and senators from those states, who willingly and purposely chose to withdraw themselves from the representative government of said Union. They were not allowed back in until s**t got straightened out.

As an aside, when you say "full voting rights," who precisely were you thinking of? Indians, black folks, women? Be honest here.
 

Independence

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
730
Location
Tennessee
This has been explained to you before. A state is an area of land. The states, in the northern view, never left the Union. What left the Union were the elected representatives and senators from those states, who willingly and purposely chose to withdraw themselves from the representative government of said Union. They were not allowed back in until s**t got straightened out.

As an aside, when you say "full voting rights," who precisely were you thinking of? Indians, black folks, women? Be honest here.
So, what you are saying is that the States are the property of the federal government? That there is no private ownership of property? Are you saying that the "Union" is the ulitmate owner of the land,as in the old soviet system?

Straightened out? according to who? I would think the citizens of those States had things straightened out to their liking,till their liking was overturned.

Voters? Who ever could vote by law at the time,which would have been most commonly thru out the republic, males 21 and older.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
So, what you are saying is that the States are the property of the federal government?
What I'm saying is exactly what I said. What you said is nothing like what I said. Read it again.

That there is no private ownership of property?
Read it again.

Are you saying that the "Union" is the ulitmate owner of the land,as in the old soviet system?
Why does every disagreement with you quickly degenerate into red-baiting?

Straightened out? according to who?
The legislative bodies from which they voluntarily withdrew themselves. If they chose to withdraw, then they do not get to set the terms under which they will be allowed back in.

I would think the citizens of those States had things straightened out to their liking,till their liking was overturned.
I know you would. However, when you lose a war, you don't get to set the terms.

Voters? Who ever could vote by law at the time,which would have been most commonly thru out the republic, males 21 and older.
I just adore your idea of "full voting rights."
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,462
It is not a question of 'ownership' it is a matter of membership. Any state is an integral part of the Union, with all the rights and Obligations possessed by all other states of that same Union. As noted above, the 'state' in this particular context is an inanimate construct, it, of its own volition can do nothing.
 

Independence

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
730
Location
Tennessee
What I'm saying is exactly what I said. What you said is nothing like what I said. Read it again.


Read it again.


Why does every disagreement with you quickly degenerate into red-baiting?


The legislative bodies from which they voluntarily withdrew themselves. If they chose to withdraw, then they do not get to set the terms under which they will be allowed back in.


I know you would. However, when you lose a war, you don't get to set the terms.


I just adore your idea of "full voting rights."
I did, you said a State is an area of land. You stated in the northern view the States never left the union.What that appers to me is to say the union owns all as in the soviet system,don't blame me for the similarities.

The legislative withdrawl,were they not equals at the time of withdrawl? How did the north aquire an overequal share to dictate to the others?

Terms? but T v W said they had never left,so there could be no terms for readmission.

Voting rights? Who would you suggest? 9 year olds?They were, after all,citizens. The insane? Who? We are talking about 1869, you know?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
I did, you said a State is an area of land. You stated in the northern view the States never left the union.What that appers to me is to say the union owns all as in the soviet system,don't blame me for the similarities.
It is all United States territory, yes. Who owns your land, you or Tennessee?

The legislative withdrawl,were they not equals at the time of withdrawl? How did the north aquire an overequal share to dictate to the others?
Uh... by the southern senators and representatives leaving, that's how. Once they did that, there was nobody left but the north. There were no "others."

Terms? but T v W said they had never left,so there could be no terms for readmission.
I think you need to review what it said. The southern senators and representatives most definitely did depart. Once again you are confusing people with places.

Voting rights? Who would you suggest? 9 year olds?They were, after all,citizens. The insane? Who?
You are more intelligent than this.
 

Independence

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
730
Location
Tennessee
K, My mortgage company owns my land till I pay it off.It sure doesn't belong to the federal government(I don't think?)

Nobody left ? That's right,how are they then empowered to overide the other States will?

Again is it landmass that makes a country, or it's citizens? The senators and representatives withdrew because their States withdrew,not the other way around.

The last one.... I'll just let that go.
 

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
K, My mortgage company owns my land till I pay it off.It sure doesn't belong to the federal government(I don't think?)
So if you wanted to secede your property from Tennessee and set up your own independent kingdom, you think you could do that and Tennessee wouldn't care or try to stop you? That what you're saying?

Nobody left ? That's right,how are they then empowered to overide the other States will?
Please re-state this in English.

Again is it landmass that makes a country, or it's citizens? The senators and representatives withdrew because their States withdrew,not the other way around.
That is epic fail on your part, but I can see you are going to refuse to understand it.

The last one.... I'll just let that go.
I am not surprised, since you seem to be of the belief that women, blacks, etc in 1869 were on an intellectual footing with children and the insane as far as deserving the elective franchise. I say intellectual, and not legal, because you, sir, are the one who said in your first post that the postwar issues should have been decided by allowing "full voting rights" to the citizens. You later defined "citizens" as including some who did not deserve and should not have had the franchise, including 9-year-olds, the insane, and others who you refused to name. Of course the only people you really had in mind were white men, because everybody else might not vote the way you would have wanted them to. Have the cojones to come out and say it.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,885
Location
District of Columbia
If Texas vs White is to be taken seriously,as of April 12,1869,should the whole idea of reconstruction been outlawed by the supreme court? If according to T. vs W. States are States period,and had always been States,should not have elections with full voting rights been held? Does the 14th amendment disqualification clause fall to the T v W judgement.
I'm not sure I understand the question. The 14th Amendment says in part: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

How does that conflict with or fall to the Texas v White decision?

There is nothing that says people shouldn't be represented. It says that insurrectionists can't be representatives. As you yourself can imagine, when large portions of states are insurrectionists, that creates logistical problems in enabling representation.

As of the 40th Congress (March 4, 1867 to March 4, 1869 - the first post Civil War Congress), just about all of the Confederate states did have representation; Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia did not. However I'm not sure if they had representation during the whole term.

Given that the nation did just go through a Civil War, I don't know if it's reasonable to expect that representation would have been enabled immediately after the war for all of the ex-CSA states. Perhaps someone who's knowledgeable on this subject can provide more info regarding how quickly the CSA states were given representation in Congress.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,462
Of all the misconception's Independence labors under, the most glaring is the assumption that participation in and support of Insurrections, Revolutions and/or treason, somehow had no bearing on the status, under the Constitution and its laws, of those participants.
 

Independence

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
730
Location
Tennessee
"Have the cojones to come out and say it."

K, you don't have to be ugly to make your point. We are talking about 1869 not 2010. Go look at the voting laws of that time. Don't get mad at me about them,I didn't write'em.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Independence

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
730
Location
Tennessee
Of all the misconception's Independence labors under, the most glaring is the assumption that participation in and support of Insurrections, Revolutions and/or treason, somehow had no bearing on the status, under the Constitution and its laws, of those participants.
OP, I get it fine,but if they were conquored territory,don't turn around and also say they are and had always been States.
It should not be surprising to anyone that the federal govt. got caught in this web.It was a trap of their own making......
 

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
K, you don't have to be ugly to make your point. We are talking about 1869 not 2010. Go look at the voting laws of that time. Don't get mad at me about them,I didn't write'em.
You said, "If according to T. vs W. States are States period,and had always been States,should not have elections with full voting rights been held?"

I said, "As an aside, when you say "full voting rights," who precisely were you thinking of? Indians, black folks, women?"

You said, "Who ever could vote by law at the time,which would have been most commonly thru out the republic, males 21 and older," and went on to say, "Who would you suggest? 9 year olds?They were, after all,citizens. The insane? Who? We are talking about 1869, you know?"

Here's the deal. If you did not mean "full voting rights," then you should not have said "full voting rights" and then tried to disingenuously get out of it by refusing to admit that "full voting rights" was, in fact, the very last thing you meant, and then implying that I must mean children and the insane... or those on equal intellectual footing with them.
 

Independence

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
730
Location
Tennessee
But FF, who controlled these States from 1868 till the mid 70's? Did a majority of the voting citizens? Did the u.s. military? Did congress? These States sent representation to d.c. right after the war and when the republican congress did like what they saw, the dispersed them. Bowers got it right,it was a tragic era.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Independence

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
730
Location
Tennessee
"Here's the deal. If you did not mean "full voting rights," then you should not have said "full voting rights" and then tried to disingenuously get out of it by refusing to admit that "full voting rights" was, in fact, the very last thing you meant, and then implying that I must mean children and the insane... or those on equal intellectual footing with them."

K, you're mixing times,in saying full voting rights should I also include the future? Will 15 year olds be able to vote one day? Full voting rights in 1869 would have been males 21 and over. Sorry it didn't include women etc? Good Greif!!!
 

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
K, you're mixing times,in saying full voting rights should I also include the future?
I asked you what you meant when you said the issues should have been decided via full voting rights. If you meant it should have been decided by white men, or perhaps by white ex-Confederate soldiers, then you did not mean it should have been decided via full voting rights. You meant the opposite: It should have been decided via limited voting rights.

Your attempt to wriggle out of it by pretending not to understand who I thought might have deserved the full voting rights that you claimed to be espousing, by implying I meant children and the insane, is deserving of some fair amount of contempt.
 

Independence

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
730
Location
Tennessee
I asked you what you meant when you said the issues should have been decided via full voting rights. If you meant it should have been decided by white men, or perhaps by white ex-Confederate soldiers, then you did not mean it should have been decided via full voting rights. You meant the opposite: It should have been decided via limited voting rights.

Your attempt to wriggle out of it by pretending not to understand who I thought might have deserved the full voting rights that you claimed to be espousing, by implying I meant children and the insane, is deserving of some fair amount of contempt.
Good Greif K. every vote ever cast here has been limited!There are limits now! What separates an 18 year old from a 17 and 364 day old! 1 day gives a person the required mental capacity to cast a ballot? Man....lighten up....
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
3,323
Location
Worcester, MA

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,885
Location
District of Columbia
But FF, who controlled these States from 1868 till the mid 70's? Did a majority of the voting citizens? Did the u.s. military? Did congress? These States sent representation to d.c. right after the war and when the republican congress did like what they saw, the dispersed them. Bowers got it right,it was a tragic era.
Indy, based on your question, I thought you were talking about representation in Congress, not control of the state governments.

Even with that added clarification, I still do not understand how Texas v White conflicts with the 14th Amendment or makes Reconstruction illegal.

I will echo what is said above. You seem to be operating under the assumption that two parties could engage in a war that killed 600,000 people, with many other casualties, and then go back to the status quo as if nothing happened. That's just not realistic. In fact - and I hope I don't sound harsh - it's a ridiculous idea. The USA would have been foolish to fight a long and destructive war, and then just leave the CSA, filled with insurrectionists, to their own devices.

I've said this ad nauseum, but: in any war there is the question/problem of how does the victor treat the vanquished? Among the alternatives are extermination, removal, enslavement, occupation, disenfranchisement of enemy combatants and sympathizers, and simple unification. Compared to how other vanquished peoples have been treated (see the American Indian for reference), the former Confederate states were treated quite humanely.

You seem to want a war where the loser faces no consequences, or gets to define the terms of their defeat; that just doesn't happen.
 
Top