Could ANYONE have guessed what the conclusion reached by a northern, reconstruction era, court needing to justify the war of Northern Aggression might have been in Texas Vs White? Their answer was:
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. Considered, therefore, as transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. Our conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the rationale for military occupation is also self-contradictory."
Interesting enough in Coleman vs Tennessee, the U.S. Supreme Court held military occupation lawful, not on constitutional grounds, but by resorting to international law principles which apply primarily to independent nations.
"Though the late war was not between independent nations, but between different portions of the same nation, yet having taken the proportions of a territorial war, the insurgents having become formidable enough to be recognized as belligerents, the same doctrine must be held to apply. The right to govern the territory of the enemy during its military occupation is one of the incidents of war and the character and form of the government to be established depend entirely upon the laws of the conquering State or the orders of its military commander." (97 U.S. 509, 517; 1879)
It would appear then that to justify the otherwise unconstitutional military occupation of a state, the post war U.S. Supreme Court treats the state as if it were an independent nation, implicitly recognizing the validity of its secession. What the Court did not cite was any constitutional provision, which justified the war in the first place. Since the invocation of international law was based on the fact of war, and the Union's involvement in that war violated the Constitution, it is evident that the Constitution's supremacy clause forbade this action. Yet the Yankee government felt compelled to resort to international law to override the Constitution. The unconstitutional and amoral nature of the Court's reasoning can be seen.
Not according to Chief Justice Chase:
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into a indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The Act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.
Considered, therefore, as transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
Our conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National Government, but entirely In accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.
The unconstitutional and amoral nature of the Court's reasoning can be seen.
The Constitutionality or the morality of Supreme Court decisions are not based on your own personal opinions. Thankfully.