Yes, we've been through that before. An ipse dixit opinion about secession by a Chief Justice who served in Lincoln's cabinet fighting against the South's secession, who dealt with the Texas bonds when he was in the cabinet, and who, when nominated, was the tenth justice on a Supreme Court court that had been packed to guard against embarrassing decisions against Lincoln doesn't carry much weight with me.
That would be the same Madison who said, "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it?"
You forgot to emphasize "or an abuse of the compact." The unconstitutional Northern laws that prevented the return of many fugitive slaves weren't sufficient enough abuse against the South? The fact that Texas had to pay its own forces to protect against armed invasions by Mexicans and Indians when the US failed to protect the state as required by the Constitution wasn't enough? The fact that the Congress passed tariffs and partial legislation that enriched the North at the expense of the South wasn't enough abuse?
You would have us believe the abusers get to decide whether an abused state can leave or not.
Yes, we've heard it all before. Your opinion carries little weight with me as well. But what you cannot dispute is that the decision was handed down. And agree or disagree as you will, secession as practiced by the Southern states is unconstitutional and will remain so until the Constitution is amended or a future court overturns or modifies the White decision.
You forgot to emphasize "or an abuse of the compact." The unconstitutional Northern laws that prevented the return of many fugitive slaves weren't sufficient enough abuse against the South? The fact that Texas had to pay its own forces to protect against armed invasions by Mexicans and Indians when the US failed to protect the state as required by the Constitution wasn't enough? The fact that the Congress passed tariffs and partial legislation that enriched the North at the expense of the South wasn't enough abuse?
No need to. Because as Madison also wrote, "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains." You say that the compact was abused. The Northern state say it wasn't. What makes you right and them wrong? Or them right and you wrong for that matter?
You would have us believe the abusers get to decide whether an abused state can leave or not.
And you would have us believe they were abused merely because they said they were. Considering the power the South wielded in Congress, the laws passed to support their slave ownership, and the court decisions handed down which overturned every law passed that was meant to hinder the abduction of runaway slaves from free states, not to mention the abuse of a state's right to run their own affairs, then your claims of abuse is nonsense.