Replies

He said, "Considered, therefore, as transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law." The actions taken were as invalid and illegal in 1861 as they were in 1869.

I don't doubt for a second that he wrote that; I credit you entirely. However:

1. He's wrong.

2. He's handling matters above his pay grade. He has no standing whatever to judge acts of the People in Convention assembled. When the People assemble as the People, they can take back every delegated power, every decision, nullify every ordinance, law, discretion, appropriation, and court decision ever made. The People answer to God. Period. Or don't you believe that?

3. With the words, "Considered, therefore, as transactions under the Constitution", the Justice fibbed. They were not undertaken "under the Constitution". They were undertaken by the People, who are above Constitutions, as witness the fact that they may assemble at will, and change the Constitution at will. The Constitution is their creature, not the other way around.

Unless you're a Lincolnian, in which case, the Justice had to earn his pay by subjecting every person in the United States to the Government, and enthroning the Government as Sovereign.