White v Texas allowed two exceptions to the indissoluble union thesis: revolution OR consent of the States. NS almost always refers to the Southern secession movement as a rebellion, as do most of his yankee brethren. Therefore, he agrees with Chase that the union could be dissolved legally via rebellion which means that everything that the United States of America did to the Confederate States of America subsequent to the Southern 'rebellion' was, and still is, illegal.
The White v Texas U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress, as was common throughout the post war South. Among those requirements was accepting a new state constitution dictated by the U.S. through armed force. Stalinists did the same thing to coerce independent nations into the "indissoluble Soviet Union.".
NS blathers on ad infinitum with statements such as, "Those of us in the real Red states prefer to fight for our country and not just walk away from it."
But Rush rightly reminds us on a regular basis that sometimes you have to "vote with your feet". Jefferson did. Washington did. Henry did. And most of the colonists joined them.
I guess NS needs to go to mother England and begin the fight to get the Colonies back.
No, rebellion means that the the rebels have reverted to the "state of nature" and thrown out the law altogether. It's the equivalent of hitting the reset button. Suppressing a rebellion is clearly legal, since the Constitution makes specific provision for doing so.
In Madison's letter to Daniel Webster, he says,
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy
Then there's Lee's letter from 1.23,1861:
Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled.
Chief Justice Chase mentioned two ways the Union could be dissolved, he didn't say that both were legal and how you can somehow stumble to the conclusion that the court said rebellion was legal is beyond me. There was one legal way to leave, through the consent of the states. There was another illegal way to leave, armed rebellion. The South chose the second way and paid the penalty for their folly.
The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress, as was common throughout the post war South.
Since their acts of secession were illegal, Texas was never out of the Union for a single moment. However, having freely entered into armed rebellion against the central government they just as freely accepted the consequences of their actions. One of those consequences was loss of their representation in Congress until they fulfilled certain requirements.
But Rush rightly reminds us on a regular basis that sometimes you have to "vote with your feet". Jefferson did. Washington did. Henry did. And most of the colonists joined them.
The difference is that they won their rebellion while you lost your's.
The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress, as was common throughout the post war South.
I assume you're talking about, among other things, the 14th Amendment. I'm no lawyer, but didn't Congress essentially declare the former Confederate states to be "non-states," without explaining how a "non-state" could legally ratify a constitutional amendment as a precondition for readmission to the Union as a state?