On the 1st of February,7 a convention, called without authority, but subsequently sanctioned by the legislature regularly elected, adopted an ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Texas and the other States under the Constitution of the United State.Therefore, per their reasoning, the actions of the secession convention of Texas was pefectly valid, and Lincoln invaded a foreign country.
Suffice it to say that the legality of the Texas secession was indeed a central part of the defense's case.
The defendants were suing for payment of the bonds. If the legislature of the state was not a state within the union, the court has no jurisdiction over their acts. Only by maintaining that Texas never left the union could the court hear the case. If that be true, then the act of the legislature was LEGAL, the law removing the requirement for the governors signature was valid, and the final decision by Chase the exact opposite of what was rendered.
Chase writes, '[t]he legislature of Texas, at the time of the repeal, constituted one of the departments of a State government, established in hostility to the Constitution of the United States. It cannot be regarded, therefore, in the courts of the United States, as a lawful legislature, or its acts as lawful acts'. In other words, the state never ceased to be a state, but it's duly elected legislature was invalid. You can't have it both ways, unless you just make this stuff up.
And I watched with amusement as you Lincoln Loathers find no lie too outrageous, no crime to vile that it cannot be laid directly at the feet of Lincoln.
In other words, the state never ceased to be a state, but it's duly elected legislature was invalid. You can't have it both ways, unless you just make this stuff up.
It's not hard to understand at all, you just have to take your blinders off. The legislature was invalid because it was taking part in and promoting acts of rebellion against the United States and claimed allegiance to a foreign and, as it turns out, nonexistent country.