Challenge it as Victor's Justice.
Fact is, Texas v. White is becoming meaningless as you can see nightly in Portland.
What had meaning in Bismarck's day (probably coined by the ole rail-splitter) still has relevance for you today: any argument is adequate if one has the majority of bayonets.
In other words, nothing.
Fact is, Texas v. White is becoming meaningless as you can see nightly in Portland.
Wuh?
What had meaning in Bismarck's day (probably coined by the ole rail-splitter) still has relevance for you today: any argument is adequate if one has the majority of bayonets.
You argument wouldn't be valid if you had the whole Prussian army behind you.
Challenge it as Victor's Justice.Fact is, Texas v. White is becoming meaningless as you can see nightly in Portland.
Perhaps a look at the background of the case might be revelatory. Texas v. White is an entertaining legal case when viewing what happened. Were you aware that it was the State of Texas that argued that the State of Texas never left the union? Texas v. White gives off the unmistakable smell of eau de skunk.
The opinion concludes: "On the whole case, therefore, our conclusion is that the State of Texas is entitled to the relief sought by her bill, and a decree must be made accordingly." The State of Texas WON the case. No, really!
The full value of the bonds involved was $47,325. George W. Paschal was one of the attorneys who represented the Military Government of the State of Texas. As his fee, he claimed the full $47,325 -PLUS- another $17,577. This was upheld by Federal court and he collected his money. In 1869, Paschal opened a law office in Washington, D.C.
I have seen no report of attorney fees for the other side, but they would presumably have exceeded the full value of the bonds. Clearly, the Federally appointed Military Government of Texas and the Federal Government of the United States were not concerned about spending money to acquire a court ruling saying that secession was somehow unlawful or unconstitutional. Accordingly, they dropped the case against Jefferson Davis which would have been forcefully defended by a dream team of its day, and pursued the marvelous little case of Texas v. White which suited their purposes perfectly.
Andrew Jackson Hamilton, acting Military Governor, appointed George W. Paschal.
Andrew J. Hamilton met with President Lincoln in 1862 and accepted a commission as brigadier general of volunteers and an appointment as military governor of Texas. Hamilton accompanied an unsuccessful federal expedition into South Texas in late 1863 and spent most of the rest of the war in New Orleans, where his family joined him late in 1864. Hamilton played a leading role in the Texas Constitutional Convention of 1868-69 and served on the Republican National Executive Committee.
George W. Paschal was one of Sam Houston's supporters in opposition to secession and during the Civil War was jailed, threatened by a mob, and held for trial by a court-martial because of reports of his Unionist sympathies.
I have seen virtually no information about the background of George W. White of Tennessee. I can understand why the Government would spend limitless dollars pursuing a case purportedly over $47,325 worth of bonds, if it resulted in an opportunity for Salmon P. Chase to declare secession unconstitutional. However, what would motivate an individual (or corporation), who purports to be pursuing $47,325 worth of bonds, to pursue litigation costing more than the possible reward?
It certainly raises the question whether this entire lawsuit was manufactured for the purpose of giving the U.S. Government the opportunity to cover itself with a fig leaf after realizing that its case against Jefferson Davis could not be brought to trial for fear of losing the argument on secession.
The bill in the suit mentioned the following persons or corporations:
George W. White, of Tennessee
John Chiles, of New York
J. A. Hardenberg, of New York
W. F. Birch, of New York
Charles P. Shaw, of New York
Byron Murray, Jr., of New York
Samuel Wolf, of Kentucky
G. A. Stewart, of Kentucky
Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky
President Andrew Johnson, on June 17, 1865 appointed Andrew J. Hamilton as Provisional Governor of the State of Texas.
Mr. Hamilton appointed George W. Paschal, the financial agent of the state, to represent the state as counsel.
Mr. E.M. Pease, a subsequent governor appointed by General Sheridan, renewed the appointment of George W. Paschal as counsel.
The Federal appointee of the Military Government of Texas (provisional Governor Andrew J. Hamilton) appointed George W. Paschal, the financial agent of said Military Government of Texas, to represent said Military Government. And thus it came to pass that the attorney purportedly representing the State of Texas argued that said State had never left the Union.
When the case was over, all the bonds in question were turned over to the Texas representative. That would be George W. Paschal. Mr. Paschal then claimed the full value of the bonds, $47,325 plus another $17,577 for his legal fees.
Governor E.J. Davis refused Paschal's claim and then dismissed him as financial agent for the state.
Mr. Paschal sued and won. He not only got to keep the bonds, but also the added 17 thousand.
And so it came to pass that Texas would have saved 17 thousand bucks plus the cost of litigation to just pay White. (And that only considers one attorney in one phase of the litigation.)
In "winning" this lawsuit, it is a bit difficult to see how the State of Texas benefitted. But it would appear that neither the State of Texas, nor the people of the State of Texas, were the intended beneficiaries.
Moreover, it did allow the Federal Military Governor the opportunity to go to Federal Court and obtain a Federal decision saying Texas never ceased to be a state.
And so it came to pass that when the State of Texas sued White, the beneficiary was the Federal Government in Washington. George W. Paschal didn't do too bad either.
Mr. Grier, in dissent, capably analyzed the legal insanity perpetrated by the majority.
It is a matter of utter insignificance to the government of the United States to whom she makes the payment of these bonds. They are payable to the bearer.The government is not bound to inquire into the bona fides of the holder, nor whether the State of Texas has parted with the bonds wisely or foolishly.
And although by the Reconstruction Acts she is required to repudiate all debts contracted for the purposes of the rebellion, this does not annul all acts of the State government during the rebellion, or contracts for other purposes, nor authorize the State to repudiate them.
Now, whether we assume the State of Texas to be judicially in the Union (though actually out of it) or not, it will not alter the case.
The contest now is between the State of Texas and her own citizens. She seeks to annul a contract with the respondents, based on the allegation that there was no authority in Texas competent to enter into an agreement during the rebellion.
Having relied upon one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this court to adopt, that she was not a State at all during the five years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of insanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the disease as void.
+1.