Talk:Texas v. White

message: :Would you mind revising this addition or explaining its placement? The 14th amendment was not added until 1868, however the case applied to events that happened in 1861.
VERY well put. My sincere apologies.
--Cuimalo 04:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added reference to supreme law of the land

message: What were/are the relevant texts that this decision was based on?  There's nothing obvious in the Constitution that implies that the union between the States is perpetual. I would think the founding fathers would have thought otherwise.  Also, the union cannot be dissolved "except through revolution"--I take it they mean sucessful revolution?  What was the Civil War but a failed revolution?  (Disclaimer: I am neither a secessionist nor a southern sympathizer.  Thank God for the Union victory and the end of slavery.)  --Locarno 14:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a personal opinion, what are the texts that the court base a lot of their decisions on?  I don't know.  A perpetuity clause was present in the Articles of Confederation, so the idea of such a clause was there among the founders, so it's obvious, at least to me, that the right to secede is (or was) available (especially since many saw the Constitution as an experiment that would only last a few decades), and that's only strengthened, in my opinion, by the 10th Amendment.  Not to mention that, when Massachusetts was threatening to secede, president Thomas Jefferson said, "then let them depart".  To summarize, I don't know.  They were Lincoln appointees and they apparently did his bidding, that's about all the explanation I can give. --Age234 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the War Between the States was deemed then and later to be just a failed rebellion/revolution. There are provisions added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment that specifically mention the case of states in rebellion. Read up on it.
Any successful rebellion from the United States would obviously be a de facto event.
DAW68.159.134.65 21:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How was this decision made? 

message: I wrote a bit about the majority decision, and I was hoping someone could review wether my interpretation of it is correct, and this isn't my area of expertise (Ironically, I wrote a paper on this decision, but I was looking at more abstract values).  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority decision 

message: Rumor has it the Texas state constitution allows secession through votes from the state government. When the Republic of Texas was admitted to the union in 1845, the U.S. declared Texas was a voluntary member and has the right to be self-autonomous in the decision of remaining a state of the union. The 1869 Texas v. White case should reversed this part of the state constitution and declare the secession clause void by federal law. In the 1990's a number of Texas separatist militias appeared in the news media and spoke of the Texas state constitution is the only one to allow secession. Who's right on this?--207.200.116.11 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, the militias are wrong. There is no secession clause in the Txas state constitution. As for when Texas was admitted to the union, I don't know if the federal government gave the option of Texas being autonomous or not. Anything to that effect would be in the resolution or law that admitted Texas in the first place, so you would want to check there. As well, even if Texas did have a secession clause that was overruled by the Supreme Court, it could technically still be in there. Just because the Supreme Court declares a law or clause unconstitutional doesn't remove it from law. The state would need to amend their constitution to remove it. If it is there and the Supreme Court eventually overturned Texas v. White it would again be valid. -- Johnny06man 12:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Who on earth taught you? Looks like they need to go back to school.Ben (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The 5 states bit is from the annexation treaty and is true. The rest, such as the purported flag rights, is the equivalent of an urban legend that crept its way in to elementary school history lessons. 64.134.101.48 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas state constitution 

message: This is a nice article but it puzzles me a bit.  First, while I acknowledge
the main impact of TEXAS VS. WHITE was to judge against secession, it doesn't
really give a very clear explanation of what the technical issue was:  "OK,
so ... what's this business about the bonds and the state of Texas?"  It's
just not clear what the problem was and exactly what it had to do with the legitimacy or lack thereof of secession.
And in the end, I don't see how the technical issue was resolved:  "So, uh 
... what happened about the bonds?"  
All this might be familiar and perfectly implicit to someone who is versed
in the case, but speaking for those who are not, it's not obvious.  The
article might be clarified on this topic.
MrG -- 12 Nov 06
::Someone else might know more about the details of what happened to those U.S. bonds. However, the Supreme Court ruling did say that ALL acts of the legislatures of the various Conferate states were NULL. (In other words, null & void.) Thus, the sale of those U.S. bonds, owned by the state of Texas, which was done by the Texas Confederate legislature was a null act. All of those U.S. bonds that has been the property of Texas, thus, had legally continued to be the property of Texas until they were legally cashed in or sold, later. Mr. White, et al., lost their case. It was as if they had never "bought" them, and whatever money they paid for them was just money down the drain for them.
DAW 68.159.134.65 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused A Bit 

message: Did the case deal at all with the obvious fact that West Virginia had been allowed to secede from Virginia and continued to be following the war? Seems as though someone would have pointed out that this completely destroys the majority ruling. Just curious.--King ravana (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: West Virginia seceded from Virginia.  Texas (et. al) seceded from the US, and that's what this ruling refers to, secession from the United States to form your own country (which is what Texas and the rest of the Confederacy did.  There is provision for states to be made from other states, like West Virginia did (and there is a tie-in to this ruling involved - despite the fact that Virginia already seceded, it would seem based on this ruling that West Virginia was created from the state of Virginia).  All that is needed to create a new state from another (or others) is permission from the state(s) involved to do so.  (Maine was also created from Massachusetts too, remember.)  --Canuckguy (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I understand there is a difference to some degree. However, you mention there is a provision exists whereby a new state may be formed from an existing one (or more) with the caveat that they gain permission from said states to do so. That does not answer, however, the question of West Virginia, as Virginia certainly did NOT give permission for said secession at the time it occurred. So, if we accept the Union perspective that the Confederate states were never a separate country, how then can we resolve the West Virginia scenario with the existing legal corpus? It doesn't fit. --King ravana (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A loyal Virginia state government was created after Virginia declared its secession.  The loyal Virginia government was recognized by the USA just as rump secessionist governments in Kentucky and Missouri were recognized by the CSA.  It was the Union state government that approved the creation of West Virginia. While what happened sure looked like secession, no ordinance of secession was ever issued.  See Border states (American Civil War)#West Virginia for the details. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks! That makes it all much clearer. More extra-Constitutional acts on the part of Lincoln & Co. Makes perfect sense now. --King ravana (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Virginia? 

message: This portion of a sentence in the 8th paragraph (which follows the second quote) of the Majority Opinion section is a bit confusing.
"...and reestablish the proper relationship between Texas and the federal government the Rebellion..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.166.107 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've corrected the sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: I added this page to :Category:Aftermath of the American Civil War, but someone reverted said edit, claiming said category apparently did not exist. Well, it exists. I just created it. Therefore adding this page to said category is appropriate. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: On our article one reads "Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869". Same in the infobox: "Argued February 5, 1869
Decided April 12, 1869". However, on FindLaw here it says that the case was decided on the 1st December 1868. Cornell Law School here also reports "December Term, 1868". Idem OpenJuris here. The original Reporters by Wallace here have "Dec 1868". But here it gets even trickier: one reads "Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)" but also "Decided: April 12, 1869" - just like our article. A couple of scholarly articles entirely dedicated to Texas v White report "Wall. 700 (1868)" (this one) and "74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869)" (this one). However, in the first article one reads that the case was decided "On April 15, 1869". Same here: "15 April 1869". So, when was the case decided? In 1868 or 1869? on April, 15, or on April, 12? I am at a loss. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the case decided? 

message: The quotation in the last paragraph of Texas_v._White#Reaction is confused:  "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States' was not surprising." is grammatically unsound.  I could not find a correct quotation.  Zaslav (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing quotation