Texas v. White
Texas v. White is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1869 that addressed the legal status of Texas following the Civil War. After the war, Texas's provisional government sought to reclaim bonds sold by the previous Confederate administration. A central issue in the case was whether Texas had the authority to sue in federal court, as the defendants claimed the state had not been formally readmitted to the Union. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, in a 5-3 decision, asserted that the reconstructed government of Texas was legitimate due to recognition by Congress and the president, allowing the state to pursue its claims in court. The ruling emphasized the concept of the United States as an indissoluble union, declaring actions taken by the Confederate government as illegal and void. This case played a crucial role in defining the relationship between state and federal authority during the Reconstruction era and highlighted the complexities surrounding statehood and governance after the Civil War.
Texas v. White
Date: April 12, 1869
Citation: 74 U.S. 700
Issues: Reconstruction; political questions
Significance: During the Reconstruction era, the Supreme Court declared that secession by a state was unconstitutional and that Congress, in cooperation with the president, had authority to determine policies for the reconstruction of the southern states.
Following the Civil War (1861-1865), the provisional government of Texas attempted to recover title to bonds that had been sold by the Confederate state government during the war. The defendants argued that the state had not yet been readmitted to the Union and thus had no authority to sue in federal court. Writing for a 5-3 majority, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase based the Supreme Court’s ruling on the powers of Congress and the president to decide political questions. He stated that because both Congress and the president had recognized the reconstructed government of Texas, it had the right to sue in court. Chase also wrote that the United States was “an indissoluble union of indissoluble states.” The actions of the state’s confederate government in support of the recent rebellion, therefore, were illegal and void. Chase carefully avoided any comments about the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts.
