This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
VERY well put. My sincere apologies. -- Cuimalo 04:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
Any successful rebellion from the United States would obviously be a de facto event.
DAW 68.159.134.65 21:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Who was the ninth Justice? How did he vote? Did he recuse himself? -- BDD 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 However, that flavor text does not reserve any right or qualify itself, but instead is directly superceded by specific statements in the Texas Constitution affirming it to be secondary to the US Constitution.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
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)
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
DAW 68.159.134.65 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
DAW 68.159.134.65 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The quotation in the last paragraph of Texas_v._White#Reaction 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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
VERY well put. My sincere apologies. -- Cuimalo 04:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
Any successful rebellion from the United States would obviously be a de facto event.
DAW 68.159.134.65 21:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Who was the ninth Justice? How did he vote? Did he recuse himself? -- BDD 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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
DAW 68.159.134.65 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
DAW 68.159.134.65 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The quotation in the last paragraph of Texas_v._White#Reaction 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)