Texas v. White
 | |
| Texas v. White | |
| Reference: 74 U.S. 700 | |
| Term: 1868 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: Feb 6, 8, and 9, 1869 Decided: Apr 12, 1869 | |
| Outcome | |
| The Supreme Court declared secession constitutionally void. | |
| Majority | |
| Salmon Portland Chase · Samuel Nelson · Nathan Clifford · David Davis · Stephen Johnson Field | |
| Dissenting | |
| Robert Cooper Grier · Samuel Freeman Miller · Noah Haynes Swayne | |
Texas v. White is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on April 12, 1869, that determined that Texas had remained a state from the time it entered the Union and throughout the Civil War because the Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States. The Supreme Court declared all ordinances of secession and all acts of the legislatures aimed at secession null, according to the Constitution.[1][2][3]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White determined that despite participating in the Civil War and adopting measures for secession, Texas had remained a state. The majority's opinion ruled secession unconstitutional "except through revolution or through consent of the States" and declared that all acts of secession, even those ratified by a majority of the people, were null.[4] To read more about the impact of Texas v. White click here.
Background
In 1851 Congress gave the state of Texas ten million dollars when it came into the union to cover the costs of the Mexican-American War, but Texas had since seceded from the union during the civil war before its reconstruction government tried to reclaim the bonds. The Supreme Court was asked if Texas was eligible to seek redress in the Supreme Court and whether or not Texas could constitutionally reclaim the money after participating in the Civil War and adopting measures to secede from the United States.[1]
In the case, the Supreme Court considered two questions: Does the state of Texas have standing to sue? Second, does the state of Texas have a right to reclaim the ten million dollars due to the state according to the compromise of 1850, even though had seceded during the Civil War? Ultimately, the court considered the constitutionality of secession and declared all acts of secession null.[2]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on February 6, 8, and 9, 1869. The case was decided on April 12, 1869.[4]
Decision
The decision in Texas v. White (1868) held that the U.S. Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, while adding, "except through revolution or through consent of the States."[4] The ruling held null all ordinances of secession and all acts of the state legislatures aimed at secession.
Justice Salmon Portland Chase wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Samuel Nelson, Nathan Clifford, David Davis, and Stephen Johnson Field.
Justices Noah Haynes Swayne and Samuel Freeman Miller wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Justice Robert Cooper Grier wrote a dissenting opinion.
Opinion
- See also: Social contract theory and The Chase Court
Majority opinion
In a 5-3 opinion written by Justice Salmon Portland Chase, the Supreme Court declared secession null and void according to the Constitution and the principles of social contract theory—the idea that people have consented to the authority of government and social rules either explicitly or tacitly. The Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White determined that Texas had remained a state despite its role in the Civil War, deemed secession unconstitutional, and held that all acts of secession are null.
Justice Salmon Portland Chase wrote for the majority and declared Texas' policies of secession treasonable and void. Because Texas' acts of secession were void, the state had never seceded and was contractually entitled to the ten million dollars afforded the state according to the Compromise of 1850. However, Chase argued that, because Texas' measures of secession were treasonable, the state had forfeited claims to the money:
| “ | 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 null. They were utter without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizen's foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of the rebellion and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.[5] | ” |
| —Justice Salmon Portland Chase majority opinion in Texas v. White[2] | ||
Justice Chase also argued that secession was contrary to the principles of federalism:
| “ | It is not necessary to attempt any exact definitions within which the acts of such a State government must be treated as valid or invalid. It may be said, perhaps with sufficient accuracy, that acts necessary to peace and good order among citizens, such example, as acts sanctioning and protecting marriage and domestic relations, governing the course of descents, regulating the conveyance and transfer of property, real and personal, and providing remedies for injuries to person and estate, and other similar acts, which would be valid if emanating from a lawful government must be regarded in general as valid when proceeding from an actual, though unlawful, government, and that acts in furtherance or support of a rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void.[5] | ” |
| —Justice Salmon Portland Chase majority opinion in Texas v. White[2] | ||
Dissenting opinion
Greer's dissenting opinion
Justice Robert Cooper Grier wrote a dissent in which he stated that he disagreed with all points decided by the majority. Justice Grier cited Justice John Marshall in Hepburn v. Ellzey who defined a state as an entity entitled to representatives in Congress and the Electoral College.[2] Furthermore, Justice Grier argued that Texas statehood was a matter of congressional rather than judicial determination. Justice Grier wrote,
| “ | I regret that I am compelled to dissent from the opinion of the majority of the court on all the points raised and decided in this case. The first question in order is the jurisdiction of the court to entertain this bill on behalf of the State of Texas. The original jurisdiction of this court can be invoked only by one of the United States. The Territories have no such right conferred on them by the Constitution, nor have the Indian tribes who are under the protection of the military authorities of the government. Is Texas one of these United States? Or was she such when this bill was filed, or since? This is to be decided as a political fact, not as a legal fiction. This court is bound to know and notice the public history of the nation.[5] | ” |
| —Justice Robert Cooper Grier dissenting opinion in Texas v. White[2] | ||
Swayne's dissenting opinion
Justice Swayne submitted an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part and represented his views as well as Justice Miller's. Justices Swayne and Miller believed that secession was unconstitutional but that Texas also forfeited its claim to the bonds when it went to war with the federal government:[2]
| “ | I concur with my brother Grier as to the incapacity of the State of Texas, in her present condition, to maintain an original suit in this court. The question, in my judgment, is one in relation to which this court is bound by the action of the legislative department of the government.
Upon the merits of the case, I agree with the majority of my brethren. I am authorized to say that my brother MILLER unites with me in these views. [5] |
” |
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
The decision in Texas v. White held that the U.S. Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, while adding, "except through revolution or through consent of the States."[4] The ruling was criticized at the time by Republicans in favor of an active federal government involved in Reconstruction and conservative Republicans who favored a weak federal government.[3] Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull introduced legislation to subvert the Supreme Court's decision. His bill stated that "under the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on political questions."[3] The bill stipulated that "it rests with Congress to decide what Government is the established one in a State, and that it is hereby, by former legislation, declared that no civil State Government exists in Virginia, Mississippi, or Texas."[3] Trumbull's bill was defeated in Congress.
See also
- Federalism
- Secession
- Salmon Portland Chase
- The Chase Court
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oyez, "Texas v. White" accessed June 14,2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Cornell, "Texas v. White" accessed June 14,2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Britannica, "Texas v. White" accessed June 14,2022
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Justia, Texas v. White, accessed June 28, 2022 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "justia" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
