Posted on 01/10/2013 7:14:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I was recently hired to review the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).
The opinion in that matter was written by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who had served in Lincoln's cabinet during the Civil War prior to his appointment as chief justice. In the recent talk of secession, this case is often thrown out as having settled the matter legally, just as the Civil War settled the matter militarily.
This memorandum of course does not address the wisdom of secession and does not advocate secession. It is devoted solely to analysis of whether Texas v. White is, as is suggested, binding precedent as to the future legality of a state attempting to secede.
1. Secession was not the ultimate issue in Texas v. White.
Texas v. White is often cited as a case which definitively and directly ruled on Texas' right to secede. That is not the case. Texas v. White was a case about government bonds. It's all a little boring but it's important to understand just how far removed the decision is from what it is often presented to be.
In 1851, the Federal Government issued bonds to the State of Texas as payment for the resolution of a boundary dispute. The bonds were payable to the State of Texas, or bearer, meaning that Texas could redeem them itself, or sell them on the secondary market. The Texas legislature then passed an act which indicated that the bonds could not be sold unless endorsed by the Governor of Texas.
Texas redeemed most of the bonds prior to the Civil War, but it still had a few left when the war broke out. These were not yet signed by the governor.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
So you're assuming that it's one lone guy or a few protestors against federal tanks? What if the first pictures are of armed mobs in the streets killing each other, or militia or paramilitary groups seizing federal buildings or stringing up dissenters?
Besides assuming that the federal government would be the ones to initiate the use of force, you may also be assuming that the military hasn't learned anything in 50 or 150 years -- that they'd go in with tanks against protestors or mobs, rather than use other tactics and technologies.
There can be all kinds of views on this...maybe there would be killings, maybe not.
What we know for sure is that unalienable rights will not defend themselves...that’s just a fact.
The fundamental question is whether or not we have the fortitude, convictions and courage of the Founders. That’s the question. They had the same fears...as did the secessionists in 1860.
Further, there need not be 100% support in a State to move to secession...just a very vocal minority back up a State Legislature.
Then we see what happens and so will the rest of the world see it this time as well. There was no internet in 1860 and not broadcast media either. Every secession movement throughout history is different. This one will be as well.
“Perhaps you can point out recent training exercises where our troops were encouraged to murder US citizens by the thousands.”
Waco is a relatively recent example where the military assisted in the murder of scores of US citizens.
Cadre would not be military, it would be ‘law enforcement’, but I have no doubt that presently many or most would ‘suppress domestic terrorists’ as defined and identified by their chain of command.
Who shall guard the guards is a question that has given every tyrant sleepless nights, but on balance in the course of human history, the guards do what their paymasters and centurions tell them to do.
Agreed on all points.
If and when this begins, some States will stand up with the people against the tyrannical Administration. The only way anyone will conquer Texas or Montana or any of number States is to nuc us and I am 100% certain any such Presidential order will be refused and turned against him.
To put all in perspective, Texas nor Texans feel any animosity toward the United States of America, we love America just as many other patriots do. I do not think secession will become necessary. The more dictatorial nobama becomes (i.e. Executive Orders bypassing Congress) the less even the mainstream dems will maintain their backing. At that point either nobama will back off or will be escorted to the plane taking him to his true friends in the muslim world.
“I put more faith in the patriotism of our military.”
These days the Lon Horiuchis may outnumber the Robert E. Lees.
“The article is thorough and accurate but that is irrelevant in the real world.”
Indeed.
What Chairman Mao had to say is a lot more relevant, given today’s circumstances.
In the coming struggle, who will prevail?
Some of us see the glass as half full most of the time and others always see it as half empty.
And we tech nerds see the glass as twice as large as it should be. :)
“Some of us see the glass as half full most of the time and others always see it as half empty.”
I see a future glass as behind a curtain, contents unknown.
As long as it would be individuals or households, yes the Lon Horiuchis would have a bad effect on those few. My contention is that before that got beyond an incident or two my state, Texas, would stand with us and the entire State would be too big for the few Lon Horiuchis to win.
Perhaps you are right. I always consider the dissolution of the Soviet Union when considering these possibilities. The USSR was designed to maintain its existence through multiple layers of redundant armed forces, police and paramilitary organizations. When the crisis arrived, they defected to Yeltsin and the reformers or remained in barracks, while the Soviet Union went to its deserved dissolution.
Our own history has contrary examples, as here:
http://www.wadehamptoncamp.org/hist-p-600.html
We are not at such a juncture yet, and there are many unknowns. The former Soviets were fortunate. The former Yugoslavs were not. I truly wonder which way we would go if it came to such a pass. I do think freedom from centralized tyranny will ultimately prevail. The question is at what cost.
The northern parts of West Virginia were settled from PA and I think the push to break away from Virginia came mainly from those areas, not the areas settled from the eastern parts of Virginia.
Liberty has no price too high.
We have talked about it and agree to stand against anyone coming and demanding our guns. We realize that it will be our bad luck and likely have a less than great outcome on personal level, but even the Revolutionaries that were initially sacrificed, were patriots first.
“Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor”
Agreed.
“The absence of a State government to assent is precisely the point: a State government was required, by the Constitution, to assent... it did not. Therefore, for WV & VA to both be States, Secession must be valid: for either VA could not secede from the US and WV could not be a State, or VA could secede and WV could secede from that secession [and join/stay with the Union].”
Since the State Government of Virginia did not remain absent, the reconstituted Government of Virginia loyal to the Union gave its assent to the secession of the counties constituting the new State of West Virginia. When this same state government of Virginia and same Governor of Virginia subsequently sued and alleged the accession of West Virginia was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States decision found West Virginia to be constitutional. So, the government of the State of Virginia loyal to the Union did assent to the secession of West Virginia from Virginia and accession to the Union.
Not exactly a fair comparison. And it may not make the point you think you're making.
Thanks for the ping.
Mercy. Clemency.
People who support secession are certainly some sort of tool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.