Can Texas Secede From the Union? | Texas v. White

Can Texas Secede From the Union? | Texas v. White

Mr. Beat presents Supreme Court Briefs Austin, Texas 1851 As promised in the Compromise of 1850, the United States Congress pays the state of Texas $10 million in bonds. Flash forward to February 1, 1861, and both Texas citizens and members of the Texas state legislature vote for the state to secede, or leave the United States. This was, of course, right before the American Civil War began. In 1862, as the war raged on and Texas fought on the side of the Confederate rebels, it began to run out of money. And so, the Texas legislature cashed in its remaining bonds to buy war supplies. To make sure the bonds wouldn’t be purposely made worth less by the U.S. Treasury-due to the fact that, I don’t know, Texas was now a foreign nation at war against them!-the Texas legislature hid where the bonds came from, and didn’t even have the governor at the time, George Washington Paschal, sign them. I probably should say that Paschal had remained loyal to the Union during the war. Two brokers named George W. White and John Chiles bought 136 of those bonds. After the Confederates surrendered and the Civil War ended, the Union forced Texas, as well as all other former rebel states, to create a new state constitution and new state government loyal to the United States. That new state government found about those bonds sold to White and Chiles, and now wanted them back. So they sued them. Oh, and check it. Texas wasn’t messin around. They took White, Chiles, and the rest of the bond holders directly to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, on February 15, 1867. White and Chiles, however, argued that the Texas government had no right to sue in the Supreme Court because Texas wasn’t even a part of the United States when they bought the bonds. But the Texas government argued that they never really left the Union. Sure, Texas seceded, but Governor Paschal never approved it. But wait, there’s more! White and Chiles also argued that looking at this case was out of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction since Texas residents, in 1867, were still under military rule and thus had no representation in Congress nor constitutional rights. The Court heard arguments in February 1869. The Court wondered…could Texas reclaim those bonds? Heck, was Texas even eligible to be seeking them with the Supreme Court? As in, were they or weren’t they a state during military rule during the Reconstruction period after the war? The Court announced their decision on April 12, 1869, voting 5 to 3 in favor of Texas. The Court argued Texas did have the right to sue for those bonds back. They also argued that when the Texas legislature voted to secede from the Union during the Civil War, um, yeah, that didn’t count. Throughout the war, the Court argued Texas was still a state, and that they couldn’t have seceded if they wanted to. Chief Justice Salmon Chase, a former Secretary of the Treasury for Abraham Lincoln, wrote, “When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.” Chase did argue that while Texas still owned the bonds, it done messed up letting them go, and had to pay White and Chiles to make up for their troubles. Justice Robert Grier wrote the dissent, arguing that Texas wasn’t a state during the rebellion, and that Congress should be determining this anyway, not the Court. Texas v. White is that Supreme Court case that always gets brought up when talking about how states can’t secede from the rest of the country. Many argue that that the Constitution doesn’t let states secede, and this case often backs up their claims. So even though the majority of Texans wanted Texas as part of the Confederate States of America, and entirely new country, and despite the fact that Texans fought against and killed Union soldiers during the Civil War, they never technically left the United States. Sure, they thought they did, but it was pretend, right? Wait, so they were fighting themselves then? Like, like in a civil war? I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury! Do you agree with the Supreme Court in this case? Does Texas, or any other state for that matter, have the right to secede from the Union, if it wants to? Let me know in the comments below. And I have a big announcement. My band, Electric Needle Room which provides most of the background music you hear in all these videos I make is releasing a new album on January 12th We are really excited about it You can preview it now by checking out the link in the description below. So yeah, check it out, and we’ll see you next week. Thanks for watching!

45 thoughts on “Can Texas Secede From the Union? | Texas v. White

  1. Great vid. In my estimation, if a part of a country wants to secede then they should be given full right to without any recourse. There is too much bloodshed that will occur over lines that can be easily redrawn with enough effort. Texas and the USA are just shapes and kids who are born after a USA that has a Texas-shaped piece missing aren't going to truly know what the USA looked like when Texas was a part of the USA. You and I have never known a modern map with a united Korean peninsula so I don't feel particularly attached to any map from the past where the peninsula was united. If parts of the USA want to be free, I say let them and not have any bloody consequences due to it.

  2. 1:05 Apparently one of my sources was wrong. Paschal was not governor when Texas seceded, just a vocal opponent of secession. Sam Houston was the governor when Texas seceded. Houston was against it and kicked out of the office due to his loyalty to the Union.

    Do you agree with the Supreme Court here? Should Texas, or any other state for that matter, be allowed to secede from the United States?

  3. Thanks for the great video Mr. Beats. I think if a state wanted to secede they should be allowed. But I feel like in the modern world that has potential for economic disaster. Especially if those of power in the US were experienced in economic disruption. Ultimately I don't think it would help anyone because this kind of decision tends to bring out the worst in people on both sides.

  4. The process for succession from the union should be similar to the process for admission into the union, meaning congress would have to approve.

  5. I've made my view on this quite clear in my video on the subject. There is another Supreme Court Case, Williams v. Bruffy, that rules on secession, and says that it is constitutional, but only if that state is militarily successful in seceding.

  6. I was under the impression that leaving the Articles of Confederation was not allowed and therefore anything derived from the present US Constitution has to be taken with more than a few grains of salt.

  7. Seeing a lot of comments about how states should be allowed to secede if they want… are you guys all crazy? Think of all the infrastructure paid for by the federal government – if a state secedes, should they have to pay the other 49 states back for that? What about all the people in the state who DON'T want to secede – would they have to move? What if they couldn't afford to? Do they still get federal benefits that they've paid into all their lives, like Social Security or VA? If states can just leave whenever, the shape of the US would get smaller with every election. If they could flat out come and go as they please, the US would implode from the economic costs of that. Look at what a nightmare Brexit is, and the EU isn't even a country.

  8. i think a state should be able to secede, but it should be approved by at least 25 states kind like the posees to amended the consitution

  9. I agree with the court this case because Texas technically* did not secede from the United States and I think that states should be able to secede from the United States if the federal goverment had did something bad to the state.Great video!

  10. Wait…if the Confederate States never technically left the union, what gave the federal government the right to
    A) Suspend their representation in Congress
    B) Dismantle their state governments
    C) Create new state governments
    D) Place their administration under military rule

  11. Hey Mr. Beats, where did you get George Washington Paschal as Governor of Texas? I looked further and nothing says of him being governor.

  12. Hey Mr. Beats, should it be Francis Lubbock who was Governor of Texas, for he was governor in 1862, while Sam Houston was governor from 1859-1861?

  13. Texas is the only state in the union that can vote by the people to succeed.

    Even President Lincoln said he had to lawfully act differently with Texas …whereas he could act LEGALLY with all other. It's a lot to it.

  14. Obviously the south succeeded for improper reasons but I wonder if states where succeeding today, and the civil war did not happen, if they would be allowed to. After the first and second world wars the United States and other western countries have frequently supported various national and ethnic groups to succeed from large countries to form nation states and not considered countries to be indivisible. It seemd to me that the 19th century laws and standards that prohibited succession after the civil war are kind at odds with modern sentiments which after all allows the issue of Scottish or Catalonian succession be considered without anyone consider the country as some indivisible and permanent creation that can impose itself of certain people who don't want to be governed by it.

  15. Suggestion: Do a video on the 1849 "Missouri vs. Iowa" Supreme Court ruling which ended the "Honey War." It's got everything in your wheelhouse! — Supreme Court, States, Odd History, Boundaries, references to the mouth of the Kansas River, treaties, kinda related to the Missouri Compromise, etc. (I know I'm not a Patreon supporter [yet] but this one is too good to not suggest!)

  16. Texas State Constitution Article 1. Bill of Rights Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

  17. If any state wants a legal way out, then let's add a constitutional amendment that'll detail how that's to be done! But, otherwise I agree with this ruling. Succession is a tricky question no matter what the circumstances, but in the grand scheme of things when it's talked out I think both sides have more to agree than disagree with (however this can't happened in all cases, like the fact that slavery would probably had stayed a thing for a lot longer, maybe even into the 20th century!), I don't think it's ironic that Texas v White decided against session, while the United States of America itself came out of a war against its former ruler which was the Kingdom of Great Britain; had the 13 Colonies' demands for representation in Parliament been met I think most of the fuzz would've fizzled out and probably lead to something akin to the Canadian Confederation that happened in the 1860s meaning today the States would have probably looked a lot like a Commonwealth Realm than what it does now or at least a federal democratic republic with a Westminster-style parliament like Ireland or India.

    On another note, I'm actually surprised Texas stayed together after the U.S. Civil War and didn't split over it like West Virginia did from Virginia (a fully detailed procedure in the Constitution of the United States).

  18. If any state tries to secede from union it means political chaos.Its wrong!Constitution forbids it but I guess it could happen after a nuclear war!God forbid!

  19. Wait this is he only case that even mentions whether or not states can secede??? That’s…. weak lol the case wasnt even about the secession.

    Or I’m confused.

  20. There is no defined and or legal method to seceed from the Federal Union short of mounting a successful war of independence.

  21. I am a bit conflicted on it. Secession should be a state's right issue, along the lines of divorce. No judge would force a marriage to stay together if the children are at risk. Also Rome split into two sections for many reasons. On the other hand there are a great many reasons for the federal government to force state's to stay together. National security reasons are the primary. It would be a long discussion to have more than what I could comment here. Yes state's should have that right, yet under strict conditions.

  22. 5 in the morning 5:30 in the morning is an Axe and coffee for breakfast all right are you at my sister my friend of mine but believe me that's nothing. I don't really get this whether or not they had a constitutional right to secede from the Union they did and they fought a war so what the hell has nothing to do with the bonds. I would have to say that a government should not be able to force estate to stay in if they can stand on their own two feet and don't want to be part of the country anymore. But then again I guess this is a common rolling. We had to fight the British to be released from their rule is this any different no not really besides the aesthetically correct movement trying to make every Confederate seem like a racist when something like 2.3% even had slaves and out of that at least .5% weren't treated as slaves. Meaning I got some sort of compensation for their work. And I'm a huge anti-immigration antipathetic we correct anti pussification of America anti everybody is either sex sister racist or pansexual will list world hardest fuck you say it what does that mean you fuck robots or and animals or something. There's something inherently wrong there. But you know I've never first of all I don't care who thinks I'm right sister causing racist I mean I really couldn't give a fuck less however I always felt African American oh my God I didn't say black they're starting to get to me blacks have been here just about as long as long as the white European settlers so I've never had any kind dislike for them as a race was a I mean Kennedy is my favorite President and it was a big civil rights guy until started including anyone who was different or chose to pretend that they were different. There is a white people who identify themselves as black now what the fuck is that. It's gotten ridiculous and Brown versus the Board of Education is one of only three of these that I've seen that the Supreme Court actually got right you know I was hyped about that now it's like what the fuc. You are what you say you identify as well I identify as a rich man so I think I'm going to sue for money civilians because I feel reserved it for all the people I've helped and the Crooked stock Brokers that fuck me over and so far so I should be a billionaire well I should be a multi-millionaire and I'm up and screwed buy Oppenheimer company so I identify as a rich man so I should be able to sue for money to make me comfortably rich really I don't know why not say that because you didn't say anything and the bleeding hearts will get behind you so damn it I'm going to give this a try I mean I probably will sounds like a good idea I'm sure someone will steal it. I didn't even sleep. I mean I think we need to Supreme Court because

  23. It's unconstitutional but it isn't impossible. If it were to be done in a peaceable way. The constitution would have to be amended with a method of process so a state can secede. It probably wouldn't be easy to do. The other method is a revolution. Multiple states form an alliance and down right revolt against the United States and defeat it. A revolution might come one day if the United States federal government becomes a tyrannical government.

  24. In all reality no matter if the Supreme Court says that the states can't succeed they're still going to succeed I'm sure if you were to go to Great Britain and the law said that Scotland could not succeed Scotland is still going to push for a succession movement however there is a weird the clause in the Constitution that says Texas can split itself into 5 different states which could give Texas more influence in the Senate going from the two senators up to 10 but that's on a technical standard that's how I see it

  25. Just one problem with this ruling: LACK OF JURISDICTION.
    By the Constitution, the states agreed to
    1. an INTERNATIONAL union

    2. of INDEPENDENT sovereign states.

    NOT to unite as DEPENDENT states of a SINGLE independent state.

  26. Just one problem with this ruling: LACK OF JURISDICTION. They might as well have been ruling on Brexit.
    By the Constitution, the states agreed to
    1. an INTERNATIONAL union
    2. of INDEPENDENT sovereign states.
    They NEVER agreed to unite as DEPENDENT states of a SINGLE independent state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *