Talk:Texas v. White

Added reference to supreme law of the land

 * Would you mind revising this addition or explaining its placement? The 14th amendment was not added until 1868, however the case applied to events that happened in 1861.

VERY well put. My sincere apologies. --Cuimalo 04:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How was this decision made?
What were/are the relevant texts that this decision was based on? There's nothing obvious in the Constitution that implies that the union between the States is perpetual. I would think the founding fathers would have thought otherwise. Also, the union cannot be dissolved "except through revolution"--I take it they mean sucessful revolution? What was the Civil War but a failed revolution? (Disclaimer: I am neither a secessionist nor a southern sympathizer. Thank God for the Union victory and the end of slavery.)  --Locarno 14:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as a personal opinion, what are the texts that the court base a lot of their decisions on? I don't know.  A perpetuity clause was present in the Articles of Confederation, so the idea of such a clause was there among the founders, so it's obvious, at least to me, that the right to secede is (or was) available (especially since many saw the Constitution as an experiment that would only last a few decades), and that's only strengthened, in my opinion, by the 10th Amendment.  Not to mention that, when Massachusetts was threatening to secede, president Thomas Jefferson said, "then let them depart".  To summarize, I don't know.  They were Lincoln appointees and they apparently did his bidding, that's about all the explanation I can give. --Age234 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the War Between the States was deemed then and later to be just a failed rebellion/revolution. There are provisions added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment that specifically mention the case of states in rebellion. Read up on it.

Any successful rebellion from the United States would obviously be a de facto event.

DAW68.159.134.65 21:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Eight-man decision
Who was the ninth Justice? How did he vote? Did he recuse himself? --BDD 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There wsa no ninth Justice. The size of the court has changed over time. Lincoln got to appoint a 10th Justice, but Johnson was denied the opportunity to appoint any, so the court shrunk through attrition in the late 1860s. From the SCOTUS page here on en.wp:
 * "In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. By the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine."
 * The list of Justices on the Salmon P. Chase page confirms that the court had 8 members at the time. --Isra1337 09:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Majority decision
I wrote a bit about the majority decision, and I was hoping someone could review wether my interpretation of it is correct, and this isn't my area of expertise (Ironically, I wrote a paper on this decision, but I was looking at more abstract values). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Texas state constitution
Rumor has it the Texas state constitution allows secession through votes from the state government. When the Republic of Texas was admitted to the union in 1845, the U.S. declared Texas was a voluntary member and has the right to be self-autonomous in the decision of remaining a state of the union. The 1869 Texas v. White case should reversed this part of the state constitution and declare the secession clause void by federal law. In the 1990's a number of Texas separatist militias appeared in the news media and spoke of the Texas state constitution is the only one to allow secession. Who's right on this?--207.200.116.11 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, the militias are wrong. There is no secession clause in the Txas state constitution. As for when Texas was admitted to the union, I don't know if the federal government gave the option of Texas being autonomous or not. Anything to that effect would be in the resolution or law that admitted Texas in the first place, so you would want to check there. As well, even if Texas did have a secession clause that was overruled by the Supreme Court, it could technically still be in there. Just because the Supreme Court declares a law or clause unconstitutional doesn't remove it from law. The state would need to amend their constitution to remove it. If it is there and the Supreme Court eventually overturned Texas v. White it would again be valid. -- Johnny06man 12:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a perpetual myth that is pretty common in Texas, to the point of being taught in some hisorty classes, according to some of my Texas colleagues. No such clause or exclusion exists. from my readings of all related documents, my assumption is that the misunderstanding derives from what is essentially "flavor" text in the start of the Texas Constitution that speaks vaguely about the subject. However, that flavor text does not reserve any right or qualify itself, but instead is directly superceded by specific statements in the Texas Constitution affirming it to be secondary to the US Constitution. However, this is a moot point as, by virtue of being a state, Texas' constitution is secondary via supremacy to the US Constitution. This is turn is moot as Texas V. White is the ultimate last word on the subject, being laid forth by the highest adjudicating body of the highest governmental authority. The mysterious exclusionary clause is the subject of much folklore, but is simply not true. There are websites that make spruious claims to the contramry, but rely on selective quotation and non-legal arguments. The final legal say on the matter is solid. Texas, and the rest of the states, cannot secede except as provided under the US Constitution and TExas v. White. Unfortunately, our wonderful governor likes to trot out the old folklore now and again.Jbower47 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I've been taught, Texas can secede from the Union becasue they joined as a independent nation, not a territory. If I'm correct, this bit should be in the Constitution. this also applies to flag rights, etc etc. There are also bits in the constitution that allows Texas to divide into 5 states if majority approves.208.80.74.49 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Texan
 * Who on earth taught you? Looks like they need to go back to school.Ben (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The 5 states bit is from the annexation treaty and is true. The rest, such as the purported flag rights, is the equivalent of an urban legend that crept its way in to elementary school history lessons. 64.134.101.48 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Joining as an independent nation would have nothing to do with it. When you join, you are bound by the rules, whatever they are, however you came. The 5-states rule makes me wonder, however. Can any state can do that? Or, if Texas can, why can not others? Can a state negotiate separate rights for itself when joining? If so, could it negotiate a seccession option? Expansion in these points, with legal references, would improve the article.

Certain religious rights were granted by treaty in the acquisition of both California and Alaska. Anything here that might lead to special status for a state? It might be of course, that the former owners were simplify being given formal assurances that these were guaranteed by the Constitution, but again, I wonder. A state used to be able to set up a state church, as the first amendment was held to only apply to the Federal govt., until the Supreme Court promulgated the Incorporation Doctrine. So, could a state be bound by such a treaty when it is admitted? The answer could be relevant to the previous questions. This article needs a good going over by a constitutional lawyer.

One other thing; this decision was handed down in 1869. I can not possibly be the first person to think that it would have been nice if they had said something earlier :) . 70.214.3.138 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Confused A Bit
This is a nice article but it puzzles me a bit. First, while I acknowledge the main impact of TEXAS VS. WHITE was to judge against secession, it doesn't really give a very clear explanation of what the technical issue was: "OK, so ... what's this business about the bonds and the state of Texas?" It's just not clear what the problem was and exactly what it had to do with the legitimacy or lack thereof of secession.

And in the end, I don't see how the technical issue was resolved: "So, uh ... what happened about the bonds?"

All this might be familiar and perfectly implicit to someone who is versed in the case, but speaking for those who are not, it's not obvious. The article might be clarified on this topic.

MrG -- 12 Nov 06


 * Someone else might know more about the details of what happened to those U.S. bonds. However, the Supreme Court ruling did say that ALL acts of the legislatures of the various Conferate states were NULL. (In other words, null & void.) Thus, the sale of those U.S. bonds, owned by the state of Texas, which was done by the Texas Confederate legislature was a null act. All of those U.S. bonds that has been the property of Texas, thus, had legally continued to be the property of Texas until they were legally cashed in or sold, later. Mr. White, et al., lost their case. It was as if they had never "bought" them, and whatever money they paid for them was just money down the drain for them.

DAW 68.159.134.65 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Last Sentence Needs Revision
The last sentence reads: "Chief Justice Chase (1864), Justice Swayne (1861), Justice Miller (1862), Justice Davis (1862), Justice Field, (1863) were all President Lincoln appointees who essentially validated Lincoln's decision to go to war with the Confederate States of America after the war's cessation in 1865 which also makes this decision controversial."

The last part about "Lincoln's decision to war with the Confederate States of America after the war's cessation in 1865" is not correct and makes no sense. Lincoln was assassinated three weeks after "the war's cessation." Perhaps the author is referring to the radical Republican plan for Reconstruction that imposed military districts occupied by Union army troops on the defeated Confederate States?Johnmshaw 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the sentence by adding the correct punctuation and emphasis. The original sentence actually made sense if one read it correctly in its context, but it was actually unclear w/o the proper punctuation. This is a sign of the problems that can be caused by people who are too lazy to punctuate correctly. Here's the revised version:


 * "...who essentially validated Mr. Lincoln's 1861 decision to go to war with the Confederate States of America - after the War's cessation in 1865, which also makes this decision controversial."


 * I added '1861' to emphasize when the decision was made, and added a hyphen and an obviously missing comma to clarify it. What they were trying to say was that Lincoln & Congress made the decision to go to war in 1861, WITHOUT any decision by the Supreme Court to validate that act. In effect, the 1867 Supreme Court decision was an ex post facto one that referred to events that had already occurred in 1861-65. This is what makes the decision conroversial - particularly to people who argue that the Supreme Court should have been asked to act in 1861 on the issue of whether any secession by the States was valid or not.


 * Nobody knows what they might have ruled then, and that is a totally unanswerable question.

DAW 68.159.134.65 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

West Virginia?
Did the case deal at all with the obvious fact that West Virginia had been allowed to secede from Virginia and continued to be following the war? Seems as though someone would have pointed out that this completely destroys the majority ruling. Just curious.--King ravana (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Texas (et. al) seceded from the US, and that's what this ruling refers to, secession from the United States to form your own country (which is what Texas and the rest of the Confederacy did.  There is provision for states to be made from other states, like West Virginia did (and there is a tie-in to this ruling involved - despite the fact that Virginia already seceded, it would seem based on this ruling that West Virginia was created from the state of Virginia).  All that is needed to create a new state from another (or others) is permission from the state(s) involved to do so.  (Maine was also created from Massachusetts too, remember.)  --Canuckguy (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I understand there is a difference to some degree. However, you mention there is a provision exists whereby a new state may be formed from an existing one (or more) with the caveat that they gain permission from said states to do so. That does not answer, however, the question of West Virginia, as Virginia certainly did NOT give permission for said secession at the time it occurred. So, if we accept the Union perspective that the Confederate states were never a separate country, how then can we resolve the West Virginia scenario with the existing legal corpus? It doesn't fit. --King ravana (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A loyal Virginia state government was created after Virginia declared its secession. The loyal Virginia government was recognized by the USA just as rump secessionist governments in Kentucky and Missouri were recognized by the CSA.  It was the Union state government that approved the creation of West Virginia. While what happened sure looked like secession, no ordinance of secession was ever issued.  See Border states (American Civil War) for the details. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! That makes it all much clearer. More extra-Constitutional acts on the part of Lincoln & Co. Makes perfect sense now. --King ravana (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

All quite constitutional. Of course an illegal government, like the secessionists in Richmond, would object to such acts. But that is the crux of the argument, I guess.

Jefferson Davis has some interesting arguments in his "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" and other writings involving West Virginia, including the idea that the Confederate States had formed a nation, and people could not go around seceding from it. He gets rather indignant at the idea. This is kind of funny, but is relevant here because of the unconscious preshadowing of Chase's arguments in White. It could be an interesting addition, if someone likes to do the research. 70.214.3.138 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
This portion of a sentence in the 8th paragraph (which follows the second quote) of the Majority Opinion section is a bit confusing.

"...and reestablish the proper relationship between Texas and the federal government the Rebellion..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.166.107 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've corrected the sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits
The edits removed material that is not attributed to any source, or misrepresents the source. It is not acceptable to write an entire paragraph and then cite to a source at the end of the paragraph. This is deceptive editing, particularly when the editor injects his voice into the material under the guise of verifiable authority, or purports to interpret case law. Each statement should be cited accurately. If a source says something, provide a full direct quote without cherry-picking to create a false impression about the material. Then your edits will be beyond reproach.74.192.33.39 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong on pretty much all counts.


 * 1. You deleted material from the article lead, claiming it was unsourced. In fact, the material is fully sourced in the body of the article.  You need to read WP:LEADCITE which clearly states:


 * Material that requires an inline citation does not necessarily require an inline citation at the first or every mention of the material. Since most, if not all, of the lead's material is repeated in the body, citations at these later points may be sufficient. Editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.


 * 2. The other material you deleted for lack of documentation was properly document in footnotes place at the end of the paragraph.  You claim, "It is not acceptable to write an entire paragraph and then cite to a source at the end of the paragraph." In fact, WP:INCITE clearly states:


 * If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text.


 * 3. You claim, "If a source says something, provide a full direct quote without cherry-picking to create a false impression about the material." In the first place, since you have not read the actual sources, your claim that I am "cherry-picking" is nothing but personal invective.  On the use of quotes versus paraphrase, you need to read WP:QUOTEFARM:


 * "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both.


 * This inappropriate editing by you is simply an expansion of your contentious editing of the article Secession in the United States. On that article you edits have been made using at least three different IP addresses. I will properly restore the information and add a couple of additional footnotes to the lead, even though they are not required. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

--- Tom: I only deleted statements that were suspect and not verifiable. I have witnessed how you cite, selectively quote, or insert your own words inside quotations. I would be embarrassed to take such liberty with the sources. It is dishonest and destructive to the purpose of Wikipedia. Words like "radical" "doughboy" and "neoconfederate" are not typically part of an academic's professional vocabulary. Even if you found a source using those precise words, I doubt it, you might ask yourself--does the statement represent a NPOV, or an agenda? Speaking of agendas, isn't the Southern Poverty Law Center, cited on your Neo-Confederate page, a primary source, or is it some other type of unreliable source?74.192.7.135 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * More personal invective. All the statements are verifiable -- of course you'd have to actual get the book and read the appropriate pages to judge that one way or the other. You haven't done that, have you?


 * Contrary to your claim, the terms "doughface" (not "doughboy") and radical, when referring to the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction, are commonly used by historians of the era. In the sections you deleted there was a total of one use of each term and in both cases the terms were used in the referenced works. Nowhere in this article is the term "neoconfederate" used. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath
I added this page to Category:Aftermath of the American Civil War, but someone reverted said edit, claiming said category apparently did not exist. Well, it exists. I just created it. Therefore adding this page to said category is appropriate. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

When was the case decided?
On our article one reads "Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869". Same in the infobox: "Argued February 5, 1869 Decided April 12, 1869". However, on FindLaw here it says that the case was decided on the 1st December 1868. Cornell Law School here also reports "December Term, 1868". Idem OpenJuris here. The original Reporters by Wallace here have "Dec 1868". But here it gets even trickier: one reads "Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)" but also "Decided: April 12, 1869" - just like our article. A couple of scholarly articles entirely dedicated to Texas v White report "Wall. 700 (1868)" (this one) and "74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869)" (this one). However, in the first article one reads that the case was decided "On April 15, 1869". Same here: "15 April 1869". So, when was the case decided? In 1868 or 1869? on April, 15, or on April, 12? I am at a loss. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Confusing quotation
The quotation in the last paragraph of Texas_v._White is confused: "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States' was not surprising." is grammatically unsound. I could not find a correct quotation. Zaslav (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)