https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
http://www.thetnm.org/did_the_supreme_court_make_secession_illegal_in_texas_v_whiteTexas v. White is a Supreme Court case that occurred after the War Between The States that dealt with bonds sold by the Confederate government of Texas. The post-war government wanted the bonds back from the person to whom they were sold. Although the legal status of Texas was at the heart of the case, the issue of secession was not the central point of the argument. However, the court took the opportunity to sound off on the issue. There have been volumes written about the problems with Texas v. White, but here are some of the key issues.
First, the Supreme Court is often wrong. Whether it’s the Dred Scott case which declared that natural rights did not extend to people of African descent or the ObamaCare case which expanded the “commerce clause” of the Constitution out of the bounds of the what the Framers intended, the Supreme Court is known for making very poor decisions which are later found to be wrong and immoral. Texas v. White is one of those and proponents are cut from the same cloth as the people that over 150 years ago believed that African-Americans were property.
Next, the majority opinion was crafted by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who, by virtue of the fact that he had a direct relationship with the issue of the bonds while acting as the Secretary of the Treasury, should have recused himself. He did not. This is similar to Elena Kagan’s work for the Obama administration on ObamaCare, then, after her appointment to the Supreme Court, ruling on the same issue. In addition, five of the Justices were Lincoln appointees turning a decision by the Supreme Court into a political statement justifying the war.
Additionally, the logic that Chase uses in his opinion defies rational explanation. The decision is full of inconsistencies that, when exposed, make Texans shake their heads. In his dicta, Chase states that the Union is “indestructible” and then lists two methods for leaving the Union. He states that the Union is comprised of “indestructible states”. If that’s the case, then he should have explained that to West Virginia. That statement is not consistent with Article IV Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and would also invalidate the annexation agreement between Texas and the United States that gives Texas the right to divide into 5 states. Chase bases his conclusions on his belief that the Constitution was a mere amendment to the Articles of Confederation thereby putting the United States under two conflicting governing documents and officially putting anyone who supports Texas v. White into the category of “wearers of tin foil hats”.
Finally, Texas v. White is found wanting in, not only the political tradition of the Founders, but also in a modern political context. At the end of World War 2 there were 54 recognized countries in the world. At the end of the 20th century, there were 192. The independence of the vast majority of these “new” countries were supported in their right of independence by the United States Federal Government. Either independence is a fundamental, moral right or it is not. Texas v. White, a Supreme Court decision from the 1860s says that it is not a fundamental right. However, 150 years of history, Federal Government policy and the spirit of the people say otherwise. Much like early Supreme Court cases declared slavery and segregation moral and legal, we live in a day and age where we find attitudes like this reprehensible.
In a land where people cherish the right of self-government, the ability to live free and regularly send the best of us to fight and die for that right for other people in the world, Texas v. White stands as an anachronism. Texas v. White, and support of it, is the worst kind of judicial activism, requires an amazing suspension of belief, is rooted in fundamental ignorance of the history and legal foundation of the Union, completely disregards the natural rights of the people, ignores the sovereign rights of the states and is the moral equivalent of supporting involuntary servitude.
