And since secession was not illegal up through 1861, any subsequent ruling to the contrary is ex post facto, so this point is moot. Seems to be just another attempt at prolonging the battle since N-S's staunchest ally in the debate has already admitted that secession was not prohibited (WhiskeyPapa, Reply No. 164).
Secession is not prohibited, as long as U.S. law operates in the "seceded" state.
Walt
If you stop and think about it for a moment you would realize how ridiculous that statement is. In the first place, the Supreme Court was not enacting legislation. It was ruling on the Constitutionality of the act of secession passed by the Texas legislature. A quick reading of the court's decision would have uncovered that particular fact. In the second place, by your definintion then every ruling by the Supreme Court, or any other appeals court for that matter, is ex post facto since every decision is a ruling on something that has already happened. That's the way the system works, especially the Supreme Court which cannot legally issue any sort of advisory ruling. So it's back to the drawing board for you I'm afraid.