Texas v. White
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Texas v. White | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Argued February 5, 1869 Decided April 12, 1869 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| Texas never left the union during the Civil War. Further, a state cannot secede from the United States. | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Salmon P. Chase Associate Justices: Samuel Nelson, Robert Cooper Grier, Nathan Clifford, Noah Haynes Swayne, Samuel Freeman Miller, David Davis, Stephen Johnson Field |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Chase Joined by: Nelson Concurrence by: Clifford, Davis, Field Concurrence/dissent by: Swayne Joined by: Miller Dissent by: Grier |
||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||
| U.S. Const. art. IV | ||||||||||
Texas v. White, was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".
During the war, the secessionist government of Texas had sold U.S. bonds after passing an ordinance repealing a requirement that the governor of Texas endorse the bonds before redeeming them. The case was brought by the state of Texas to recover the bonds that had thus been transferred to White, Chiles, and several others. The issue of whether or not Texas was a state of the United States had bearing on whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in the case.
The court's opinion was authored by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, himself a former cabinet member under Abraham Lincoln and leading figure in the Union government during the American Civil War. Based on his previous position, many southerners questioned Chase's impartiality and believed he should have recused himself from the decision. While legally binding, the court's decision was extremely controversial and remains so to this day. Many former Confederate officials such as Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens as well as legal theorists such as Lysander Spooner rejected the court's reasoning and defended the right of states to secede.
The main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual. This, combined with the current Constitution's expressed goal of creating a more perfect Union, suggested that the United States was now more perfectly perpetual. Also cited was the statement in Article Four of the United States Constitution that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This implies that Texas would always be a state, distinct from its government (since the Constitution refers to a state as having a government rather than being a government). This also suggested that the Constitution could work to ensure states remain intact and to regulate state governments. As the Court wrote, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Hence Texas would still be a state even when laws are passed saying it is independent. Such laws would be "absolutely null."
The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility of the Union in the following statement:
- 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 through consent of the States.
Justice Grier, in a dissent in which Justices Swayne and Miller joined, denied that Texas remained a state, on the basis not that Texas had successfully seceded but that she had become a "conquered province". Grier cited precedent that a state is defined as an entity with representation in the United States Congress. During the Civil War, Texas had lost that representation. Thus, her status had become more analogous to an Indian tribe than to a state.
[edit] See also
[edit] Sources
Graham, John Remington. (2002) "A Constitutional History of Secession", (First Edition). Pelican Publishing, ISBN 1-58980-066-4
Spaeth, Harold J.; and Smith, Edward Conrad. (1991). HarperCollins college outline series: Constitution of the United States. (13th ed.). New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-467105-4
