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!

The Case Of Texas V. White Reconsidered

Discussion in 'Civil War History - Secession and Politics' started by jgoodguy, Feb 16, 2017.

  1. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    26,789
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    The Case Of Texas V. White Reconsidered With Special Reference To The Doctrine Of Political Questions
    Author(S): C. Gordon Post
    Source: The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (MARCH, 1935), P. 318-319
    Published By: Wiley
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42879219

    While Texas v White is known for its ruling on secession, it also ruled on what a State was. In doing so it chose for the nation one of the least intrusive and beneficial ruling for the Southern States.

    Beneficial to the Seceding States? Well yes, worst things could have happened in the political climate of the time.

    IMHO Texas v White was decided on the political question, but this author has a different view.
    Chase used the issue of jurisdiction to settle the question of secession, but along the way the issue of what is a State is encountered. If Texas is not a State, the case cannot be heard.
    First we clear out the secession issue.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2017
    chellers, KLSDAD and Andersonh1 like this.

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

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    26,789
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    The Case Of Texas V. White Reconsidered With Special Reference To The Doctrine Of Political Questions
    Author(S): C. Gordon Post
    Source: The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (MARCH, 1935), P. 320-
    Published By: Wiley
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42879219
    The defense alleged that Texas could not litigate because it was not a state. Not a state meant that The US Supreme Court had no jurisdictional. No jurisdiction means no ruling. No Statehood had dire consequences. IMHO the the most important part is that Texas and by implication all self styled seceded States never really left the Union and were States.
    However Chase ruled that congress had established a Texas government and that government was competent to to litigate the issue.
     
    chellers likes this.
  4. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    26,789
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    The Case Of Texas V. White Reconsidered With Special Reference To The Doctrine Of Political Questions
    Author(S): C. Gordon Post
    Source: The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (MARCH, 1935), P. 321-322
    Published By: Wiley
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42879219

    Grier is having none of this. Texas is under military rule and not civilian and lacks representation in Congress. He also says his view is based on Congress's political decision. One result is that if Texas is just like a territory then it can be renamed or divided up.

    The athor of the article continues
    Then the Author makes an assertion that is perhaps unprovable.
     
    chellers likes this.
  5. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    26,789
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    Gier's opinion looks suspiciously like the radical republican proposals. A seceded State simply no longer exists and it former territory is foreign conquered territory at the mercy of a Radical Republican Congress.

    Maybe Chase had the right idea after all.

    Constitutional History Of The United States From Their Declaration Of Independence To The Close Of Their Civil War By George Ticknor Curtis

     
    chellers likes this.
  6. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    26,789
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    In conclusion,
    Chase short circuited the Radical Republicans.
    The South got the least bad solution. Indestructible States sounds pretty good compared to State Suicide.
     
    chellers, unionblue and O' Be Joyful like this.
  7. OpnCoronet

    OpnCoronet Major

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    8,946
    I wonder if Chase, while in Lincoln's Cabinet, had any conversations , or was present, when Lincoln might have voiced his opinion on the indestructible nature of the States in the Union.

    Chase, of necessity, I would think, was required to carry the theory much further than Lincoln would have, but, it was not an unknown argument, even before Chase.
     
    jgoodguy likes this.
  8. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    26,789
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    I tend to think so. However the attorneys in the case are going to raise arguments, the plaintiffs, arguing for the reconstruction government will argue for the indestructible union/states. Paschal is one of the attorneys for Texas.
    Texas Versus White: A Study in Legal History P34
    State of Texas v. White Transcript of Record / U.S. Supreme Court / 1868 / 6 / 74 U.S. 700 / 19 L.Ed. 227 / 1-29-1869 P117 Complainant's Brief P9
    No online refs available.

     
  9. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    26,789
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    IMHO
    The purpose of the SCOTUS is to make ultimate decisions on the Constitution where there are multiple competing positions on the Constitution.
    At the time of Texas v White the question of unilateral secession was settled by force of arms.
    The ultimate decision to be made was the nature of Texas and by way of precedent, the rest of the seceding States.
    The court made a decision. It could have made a different one, there were arguments supporting that the conquered CSA was just conquered territory as if conquered from Canada or Mexico.
    A decision had to be made and it was made.
     
    48th Miss. likes this.
  10. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    26,789
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    As early reference to indestructible States. These concepts existed prior to Texas v White

    The Constitution of the United States: A Critical Discussion of ..., Volume 1
    By John Randolph Tucker
    and Union also by Choate.
     

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

Share This Page


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