It held that secession as practiced by the Southern states was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Chase noted that it was permitted with the consent of the states.
That ruling would be ex post facto, and the constitution does not allow any retroactive application.
I would point out that all court decisions are ex post facto since all decisions take place after the fact. And court decisions quite frequently are applied retroactively; witness Furman v Georgia which struck down death penalty verdicts all over the country in 1972.
However, prior to Texas v. White, secession was not unconstitional (there was nothing on point even addressing the issue).
That is not what the Texas v White decision says.
It’s an interesting subject.
It is indeed.
“I would point out that all court decisions are ex post facto since all decisions take place after the fact. And court decisions quite frequently are applied retroactively; witness Furman v Georgia which struck down death penalty verdicts all over the country in 1972.”
Read what I said. I said an ex post facto ruling cannot be retroactively applied. That means that if something is legal in 1860 the Constitution does not allow a ruling in 1868 to go back and charge the actor after the fact (i.e., ex post facto application).
“That is not what the Texas v White decision says.”
That’s what the LAW says.
I think the reason you antagonize so many people on FR (besides you pathological hatred of anything and everything Southern, which is, in all candor, alarming), is that you cherry-pick other’s comments, take them to a place they never were, and then toss in an aside that, while on the surface may seem relevant, but in fact is not. It is, well...a non-sequitur.