Yes it was. Texas v White 74 U.S. 700 (1869) Link
Which makes about as much sense, today, as imposing Shar'ia law. The Supreme Court only offered the construct of the Union as being "perpetual", obviously an impossible duty to be imposed upon future generations (even Rome finally fell), and formed into "a more perfect Union" by the words of the Constitution. Times change, people change. Words written in one context cannot always be transferred to another context.
This is only an early example of "judicial activism", reinterpreting the original intent to conform with the local current passions of the times. Since the Constitution superceded the Articles of Confederation, the standard of "in perpetuity" (which has been struck down again and again in law at various levels) has become moot.
What is glaringly obvious, is that Union has become much LESS perfect that its former state, with the Federal government usurping by increasing degrees the amount of power exerted in the daily life of its citizens. The national legislature has become insensitive to the demands of the voters and taxpayers, chosing to direct their attention to meddling in the marketplace, to the point of nearly stopping ALL commerce, by both excessive taxation and extremely restrictive regulation.
The Supreme Court of the time was blowing smoke, so to speak. And as such, are NOT beyond criticism today.
To say that secession is illegal is analogous to saying that war is illegal.
When the differences between two or more sides become so great that they cannot continue to coexist, secession or outright war will happen whether or not it has been deemed illegal or not.
Secession on this scale is not something that requires the consent of both parties or the consent of a judge. It is one of the human responses to tyranny.
Ive seen enough of you to know that the “legality” of secession is not what your interested in. Your interested in the threat of force to keep slaves tied to the socialist “fields”. Your argument ALWAYS boils down to “the federal government will use force against any state and population of people who chooses to abandon their chains”.
You should just rid yourself of the extra “fluff” that is easily swept away and get to the core of your argument, because that is the only part of your argument that has any merit. However, that point no loner is met with fear, it is instead met with determination and defiance. The marxists cannot keep us as their “resource” for much longer and when they do initiate violence they will find an opponent that is strategically and tactically prepared. How could we not be? We have been threatened for decades about this. We took the threats to heart and will be prepared for it. Count on it...
A real case about the legal merits of secession was not held. The principles in the Civil War were never put on trail, in part, because FedGov did not want to have to argue their case in court. I disagree that you have proven your point.
The Court said that that particular SECESSION was illegal.
However, it could never properly rule on whether THE RIGHT TO SECESSION is legal, since it is a natural right.
oh, but that was 1869, that is dead now don’t you know we are in the progressive 21century. :)
Yes it was. Texas v White 74 U.S. 700 (1869) Link
____________________________________________________________
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2480723/posts
Please see the link for a previous discussion of this issue.
Yes, secession was litigated in Texas v White, BUT NOT UNTIL 3 YEARS AFTER THE WAR.