Feb 5 to Apr 12 Texas v. The case involved a claim by the reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on cases in which a state is a party. In accepting jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case.
Background[ edit ] Secession and bond sales[ edit ] On February 1,the Texas secession convention drafted and approved an Ordinance of Secession.
This ordinance was subsequently approved by both the state legislature and a statewide referendum. On January 11,the state legislature approved the creation of a Military Board to address issues involved in the transition in the shift in loyalty from the United States to the Confederate States.
While many of the bonds were sold, there were still some on hand in Needing money, the legislature authorized the sale of the remaining bonds.
Existing state law required the Texas governor to sign his endorsement on any bonds which were sold, but the state feared that the sale price would be depressed if the United States Treasury refused to honor bonds sold by a Confederate state.
White and John Chiles. Although this sale probably occurred earlier, the written confirmation of the transaction was not executed until January 12, The bonds were in the meantime resold to several individuals, one or more of whom were able to successfully redeem the bonds through the United States government.
Hamiltonand ordered the state to create a new state constitution and form a state government loyal to the Union. Throckmorton was elected governor under this process. Throckmorton was in office for a year before General Philip Sheridanthe military commander of the Military District of the Southwest, dismissed him for being an "impediment to the reconstruction of the State", appointing Elisha M.
Pease in his place. John Chiles, who was being sued along with White, argued that he could not be sued because Texas lacked evidence.
He claimed the bond documents were destroyed by soldiers and that there was no way to get them back. White believed therefore, that he should not have to reimburse Texas. After the state realized that it was no longer in possession of the bonds, it determined that the bonds had been sold illicitly to finance the rebellion against the United States.
All three of the governors, in order to regain ownership of the bonds for the state, approved filing a lawsuit under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which granted original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in all cases "in which a State shall be a party".
White, John Chiles, John A. Hardenburg, Samuel Wolf, George W. Birch, Byron Murray, Jr. Radicals opposed the creation of provisional state governments, and moderates were frustrated by a number of lawsuits instigated by provisional southern governors attempting to obstruct congressional reconstruction.
They hoped that the Supreme Court would reject jurisdiction in the case by claiming that there was no legally recognized government in Texas.
Such a ruling would have the effect of accepting Texas as fully restored to its place in the Union and render the Military Reconstruction Act unconstitutional.
Wall Street was also concerned with the case, being opposed to any actions that threatened bondholders and investors. Arguments before the Supreme Court were made over three days on February 5, 8, and 9, State of Texas, plaintiff[ edit ] The complaint filed by Texas claimed ownership of the bonds and requested that the defendants turn the bonds over to the state.
In response to an issue raised by the defendants, Texas differentiated between those acts of the legislature necessary "to preserve the social community from anarchy and to maintain order" such as marriages and routine criminal and civil matters and those "designed to promote the Confederacy or that were in violation of the U.
Chiles and White might be liable to such purchasers and any purchasers who had successfully redeemed the bonds were liable for a personal judgment in favor of the state for the amount they received.
They claimed that the section of the Constitution granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction did not apply. Residents of Texas were subject to military rule and had no representation in Congress and no constitutional rights.
They rejected the notion that the people of the state and the state itself were legally separate entities.
As long as the people had chosen to act through representatives it was irrelevant who those representatives were. Carlisle further stated that the precedents recognizing that the decisions of the "revolutionary" government would be binding on any subsequent governments were "universally admitted in the public law of nations".
Phillips, argued that if the bond sales were invalid, then all actions of the state government during the war were null and void. He stated that "civilized government recognizes the necessity of government at all times".
Phillips concluded his presentation by stating that if, in fact, Texas had acted illegally during the war then a subsequent government had no right to appeal that illegality to the Supreme Court. Secretary of the Treasury under President Abraham Lincoln.ClassZone Book Finder. Follow these simple steps to find online resources for your book.
Lexis Advance is your legal research solution, efficiently powering your case law research with more relevant results from trusted sources.
Try it today! Apr 13, · In any event, in an case called Texas vs.
White, the Supreme Court held that once Texas became a state in , its union with the other states was complete, perpetual and indissoluble.
In a case, the Supreme Court said that territory acquired by conquest or treaty is acquired "as absolutely as if the annexation Status: Resolved. Roe v.
Wade, U.S. (), is a landmark decision issued in by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to barnweddingvt.com Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced.
Delegation strategies for the NCLEX, Prioritization for the NCLEX, Infection Control for the NCLEX, FREE resources for the NCLEX, FREE NCLEX Quizzes for the NCLEX, FREE NCLEX exams for the NCLEX, Failed the NCLEX - Help is here.
Texas v. White, (), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.
In the state of Texas received $10,, in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In the state seceded from.