A friend of mine brought to my attention an article written by Andrew Lang in the Houston Chronicle. It was entitled “Want to secede? Better think again”. The author identifies himself as a graduate student in history at a Texas university.
His awareness of history is lacking, which says a great deal about the university, which he left nameless. He claims the issue of secession was settled twice before. I beg to differ with him. Let me start with his second claim first, the “Union army during the Civil War”. His rationale is the same rationale that says occupation makes things right. Occupation has never made it right and never will. It has led to numerous conflicts in Israel, Tiawan, East Germany, Hong Kong and other locations. His logic is the same as ‘to the victor go the spoils’. According to Lang’s logic, the occupation of the North American colonies by the British meant that the British were the legitimate owners of the east coast, since they occupied it. Occupation does not settle issues. If it did there would not be conflicts in Gaza, Tibet or Tiawan. His stance is once that supports any regime occupying a location or people against their will.
His fist point is wrong. The court case of Texas v. White did not make secession illegal. If he had read the opinion rather than some pointy headed interpretation of it, he would have known this.
In the opinion, the Chief Justice states:“…the Union is indestructible and not dissoluble by acts of a state, the government or the people. Secession could only occur in a revolution with the approval of all the states” The Chief Justice does say that the union is indestructible and then turns around and gives the specifics of when secession could occur. Granted, this is typical legal double talk, where he covers himself both ways. Nowhere does the document say it is illegal, treasonous or un-american. The ruling is often cited as proof that secession is illegal, although this ruling like Row v. Wade was a case where the court overstepped its authority to take a stand. It was over reaching in order to put forward an agenda. At the time, the United States needed a court case so that it could justify repudiating the debts of the Confederacy. The court did not have a case against President Jefferson Davis, for treason or any other allegations.
In making the ruling, the judge told the State of Texas it had to pay a bond holder money owed him. The judge then decided to rule on the legality of how Texas seceded. Chief Justice Chase convieniently chose to only consider select pieces of information. He cherry-picked his issues. He did not want to consider the illegal circumstances surrounding annexation or how the secession convention merely renounced an illegitimate act in order to secede, he only attacked the secession itself, taking the events out of context. The ruling was taken to apply to all the States yet other rulings of SCOTUS that validated issues related to secession were ignored (these mainly pertained to debts incurred and who was responsible for them. When a person has a debt incurred, the payment of that debt establishes legitimacy.)
In formulating his decision, since he was a radical Republican, his theory of the case was that secession was illegal. Chase had to have the ruling in order to justify the questionable actions taken by Congress with the 14th amendment. He needed a precedent in order to support the whole legislative agenda of the radical republicans. In writing his opinion, he chose the ‘indestructable’ portion out of the Articles of Confederation, and the responsibilities of a State from the Constitution. It was a classis cut and paste legal decision. It said what he wanted it to say, even though he had to take material from various sources to make his point, rather than allow the consistency of the documents remain intact. Chase had an agenda and forced the decision on the people. Although he said that Texas never left the Union, the legal rights of Texas had been removed and Texas was not allowed representation in Congress, which is a no-no if we had been a State.
The whole ruling was dirty. Once the Supreme Court had it ruling, people did not want the issue opened up again, so the legal scholars often say, “it was settled” rather than have to seriously examine the merits of the case. The establishment did not want their precious Union to come unravelled, so they avoided the case like the third rail. If the case was honestly scrutinized, it would not stand up. Rather than risk a possibility that it could lead to the undoing of many other policies and decisions, the legal and judicial communities have left it alone.
Liberty for Texas!
J Murrah
Andrew Lang, annexation of Texas, Culture, Current Affairs, Political Well Being, Salmon Chase, SCOTUS, Texas v White, the legality of secessionIf you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
