Can Texas Secede From the Union? | Texas v. White
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 жов 2024
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! amzn.to/45Wzhur
Electric Needle Room's album is here:
electricneedle...
Patreon: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedler...
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Grant Hurst's video on the subject: • Can States Secede? | C...
Correction:
01:05 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.
In episode 22 of Supreme Court Briefs, Texas sells bonds from a country it claims to no longer be a part of. After all is said and done, the Supreme Court decides whether or not Texas has a right to secede from the Union.
Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Electric Needle Room (Matt Beat). All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines.
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/c...
Additional sources used:
www.britannica...
www.law.cornel...
tshaonline.org...
www.americanthi...
tshaonline.org...
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.
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 them up.
#supremecourtbriefs #supremecourt #ushistory
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
It makes me happy that there was a Supreme Judge called Salmon Chase. Named after a bears favourite past-time.
HAHAHA I had never thought about his name like that. It is a rad name. I'll never forget when I first saw his name on money. I didn't think it was real money.
Bears do NOT chase salmon pee.
What's interesting is that Chase bank is named after him. He has nothing to do with it though
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?
Mr. Beat one time you mentioned one of these courts briefs to the most important in America, which one was was it
I believe the people should have a choice in any country if they want to secede from another country but if the secessionist are doing it to infringing on a group of peoples rights it shouldn't be allowed. Also could counter argument be made that the constitution doesn't apply to a country seceding because that seceding country is pretty much saying they don't want to follow the constitution?
If we did allow secession, what would stop individual rich people from declaring themselves independent tax havens? Welcome to the Kingdom of Bill Gates
I can't imagine a scenario that'd be mutually beneficial for both the individual state and the US as a whole that would warrant allowing secession
Marbury v. Madison. I made a video about it back in the day, but I plan on updating that one some time in 2018.
Crimson, definitely. That's why it's an interesting topic to explore. Laws only work when citizens recognize them. I'm thinking if secession were to happen both sides would have to agree to it, and that's highly unlikely to happen any time soon.
They considered every state that "seceded" not as a seperate country, but as states within the US in open rebellion. So yes, in the governments eyes they never seceded because you can't legally secede. (unless you win the actual war ensuing and get international recognition of course)
Yes, the United States won their war for independence, but the Confederate States did not. That's pretty much how it's always worked throughout history.
@@Compucles The illegitimate csa seceded because of slavery
Exactly The Civil War played a very big role in establishing the power of the federal government and cementing that the federal government has the final say in these issues."
Many believe that when the Confederacy surrendered in 1865, the idea of secession was also defeated, McDaniel said. The Union's victory set a precedent that states could not legally secede. Therefore if the South would have won the civil war the Southern States including Texas would have succeeded from the Union and become their own Nation but because they lost the war they lost that ability to succeed therefore remain part of the Union.
If there is no law that prohibits succession, then it cannot be illegal. The only thing that can be referenced is the Supreme Court ruling in Texas v White. The Supreme Court ruling was a 5-3 and could be overturned by a future ruling. The ruling was biased because Texas was arguing that Texas had not legally succeeded.
@@TexasEngineer Not exactly. I mean, yes, theoretically the court can say whatever it wants, it could just ignore the Constitution completely and go rogue, but that's unlikely and could easily have that power checked by the other branches of government. But assuming a reasonable court, if this case came up again, no doubt they'd consider the fact that the Constitution has a legal framework for adding states, but doesn't specify one for removing them, and as such a constitutional amendment would be needed to allow states to secede. This is why in Texas v. White the opinion says, "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." The likelihood of the court ignoring the Constitution completely and allowing unilateral succession is extremely unlikely, and would essentially require them making up new legal processes that aren't currently written.
THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. BEATS! YOU HELPED ME VERY MUCH. I AM VERY GRATEFUL. THANK YOU!
Jett For President Thank you for having me as your profile picture
It was my pleasure, Jett. Hopefully you can use the video next week. How is your final project coming?
I am working on it. Thank you for asking.
Well, Ulysses S. Grant is one of my favorite presidents.
To summarize: SCOTUS ruled that Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States. They also held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances were nullified.
That is the argument. Now find it in the Constitution that a state cannot leave and you will be looking for a long time. If anyone can point to the chapter and verse in the Constitution, I want to know where it is. If there is no law agaist leaving then it can’t be illegal. If the states did not leave the Union, why were they made to rejoin the Union?
I suggest we look at how Texas left the Union and was it hijacked into leaving. Maybe the Texas government was illegaly taken over by an illegal convention. I really want to know.
@@TexasEngineer There is no provision in the Constitution validating the secession of any member state. This means that the federal government can disregard any state government declaration of secession. If the state's constitution included a provision for secession then it may have legal basis to do so, but that would've politically crippled it in any federal legislature.
@@enkephalin07 The Texas Constitution allows for the People on Texas to change their government. It does not layout the details, but I interpret it to mean by a vote of the people.
1876 Texas Constitution
ARTICLE I
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. (Feb. 15, 1876.)
That is pretty clear to me, the people of Texas reserve the right to change their government. They did not give up their rights.
@@TexasEngineer Good point. The US constitution has no provision for administrating territory from which its government has abolished itself. But, the constitution still has no exit clause, so like Hungary and Turkey, we're still stuck with you.
@enkephalin07 I would agree with you but you're missing the important detail that the constitution doesn't grant powers to anyone. The tenth amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Therefore you're proving yourself wrong by saying that since the constitution doesn't mention secession it isn't allowed. The tenth amendment clearly displays that when something isn't mentioned in the constitution it IS the power of the people or states to decide.
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.
Yeah, I should have brought up that case in hindsight. It's such a weird issue. If you think about it, why would a law even matter if people in a state were so mad that wanted to secede to begin with? If a state is that upset, the law or interpretation of the law would be irrelevant. I'm going to add a link to your video in the description. I haven't seen that one!
Mr. Beat Mighty kind.
Texas V White is not law, nor a binding court opinion. The Courts are bond by jurisdiction, jurisdiction proceeds from law, Law = Jurisdiction, jurisdiction = power. The court in Texas V White did not have the power of jurisdiction as there was nor is a law making secession unlawful or illegal. No one can cite the article within the 1787 Constitution, amendment thereto or law that states that secession was or is unlawful or illegal, hence there was no power of jurisdiction in the Texas V White case. Justice Chase even admitted such in the case when he stated.....
“If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at the time of filing of this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.”
Texas was NOT a member State in the union once it had legally and lawfully seceded which was the case absent a law to the contrary. Proof also that Texas was not a member State in the union at the time the Texas V White case was file, nor when the opinion was rendered in the case proof of this fact lies in the Texas March 30, 1870 re-admisiion of Texas to the union: Texas rejoined the Union on March 30, 1870, when President Grant signed the act to readmit Texas, one cannot be "RE-ADMITTED to something it never left, therefore clearly the "RE-ADMISSION" itself is proof Texas was not a member State in the union from the time Texas legally and lawfully seceded. The reality is that the State of Texas that seceded has never been re-admitted to the union, as constitutions establish government, and government establishes a State, the very definition of a State according to Johnson's Dictionary of the English language is defined as "A mode of government". Since the Texas constitution was forcibly removed, (The very Constitution that was acceptable as a member State) and was the Constitution which formed the State and its government, and replaced by a new Constitution, a new State using the same name as the original State replaced the dejure State of Texas, the Dejure State remains in a state of forced exile.
Getting back to the Courts lack of Jurisdiction, there was no law stating that secession was unlawful or illegal , hence the STate of Texas legally and lawfully seceded which means that the Court in Texas V White, as Salmon Chase admitted, held no jurisdiction......
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio."
In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
It matters not what Williams v Buffy or Texas V White states, in either case the courts held no jurisdiction once each individual State had legally and lawfully seceded.
Texas V White nor Williams v Buffy is law, nor a binding court opinion. The Courts are bond by jurisdiction, jurisdiction proceeds from law, Law = Jurisdiction, jurisdiction = power. The court in Texas V White did not have the power of jurisdiction as there was nor is a law making secession unlawful or illegal. No one can cite the article within the 1787 Constitution, amendment thereto or law that states that secession was or is unlawful or illegal, hence there was no power of jurisdiction in the Texas V White case. Justice Chase even admitted such in the case when he stated.....
“If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at the time of filing of this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.”
No one can cite the article within the 1787 Constitution, amendment thereto or law that states that secession was or is unlawful or illegal. absent a law making an act unlawful or illegal the act is by default perfectly lawful and legal.
Texas was NOT a member State in the union once it had legally and lawfully seceded which was the case absent a law to the contrary. Proof also that Texas was not a member State in the union at the time the Texas V White case was file, nor when the opinion was rendered in the case proof of this fact lies in the Texas March 30, 1870 re-admission of Texas to the union: Texas rejoined the Union on March 30, 1870, when President Grant signed the act to readmit Texas, one cannot be "RE-ADMITTED to something it never left, therefore clearly the "RE-ADMISSION" itself is proof Texas was not a member State in the union from the time Texas legally and lawfully seceded. The reality is that the State of Texas that seceded has never been re-admitted to the union, as constitutions establish government, and government establishes a State, the very definition of a State according to Johnson's Dictionary of the English language is defined as "A mode of government". Since the Texas constitution was forcibly removed, (The very Constitution that was acceptable as a member State) and was the Constitution which formed the State and its government, and replaced by a new Constitution, a new State using the same name as the original State replaced the dejure State of Texas, the Dejure State remains in a state of forced exile.
Getting back to the Courts lack of Jurisdiction, there was no law stating that secession was unlawful or illegal , hence the State of Texas legally and lawfully seceded which means that the Court in Texas V White, as Salmon Chase admitted, held no jurisdiction......
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio."
In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
@@iammrbeat .....
It matters not what Williams v Buffy or Texas V White states, in either case the courts held no jurisdiction once each individual State had legally and lawfully seceded.
Texas V White nor Williams v Buffy is law, nor a binding court opinion. The Courts are bond by jurisdiction, jurisdiction proceeds from law, Law = Jurisdiction, jurisdiction = power. The court in Texas V White did not have the power of jurisdiction as there was nor is a law making secession unlawful or illegal. No one can cite the article within the 1787 Constitution, amendment thereto or law that states that secession was or is unlawful or illegal, hence there was no power of jurisdiction in the Texas V White case. Justice Chase even admitted such in the case when he stated.....
“If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at the time of filing of this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.”
No one can cite the article within the 1787 Constitution, amendment thereto or law that states that secession was or is unlawful or illegal. absent a law making an act unlawful or illegal the act is by default perfectly lawful and legal.
Texas was NOT a member State in the union once it had legally and lawfully seceded which was the case absent a law to the contrary. Proof also that Texas was not a member State in the union at the time the Texas V White case was file, nor when the opinion was rendered in the case proof of this fact lies in the Texas March 30, 1870 re-admission of Texas to the union: Texas rejoined the Union on March 30, 1870, when President Grant signed the act to readmit Texas, one cannot be "RE-ADMITTED to something it never left, therefore clearly the "RE-ADMISSION" itself is proof Texas was not a member State in the union from the time Texas legally and lawfully seceded. The reality is that the State of Texas that seceded has never been re-admitted to the union, as constitutions establish government, and government establishes a State, the very definition of a State according to Johnson's Dictionary of the English language is defined as "A mode of government". Since the Texas constitution was forcibly removed, (The very Constitution that was acceptable as a member State) and was the Constitution which formed the State and its government, and replaced by a new Constitution, a new State using the same name as the original State replaced the dejure State of Texas, the Dejure State remains in a state of forced exile.
Getting back to the Courts lack of Jurisdiction, there was no law stating that secession was unlawful or illegal , hence the State of Texas legally and lawfully seceded which means that the Court in Texas V White, as Salmon Chase admitted, held no jurisdiction......
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio."
In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
1:21 who's that handsome man with the beard to the right of Lee?
+Ulysses S. Grant It's YOU, Ulysses.
Mr. Beat Oh woops. My throat cancer has given me bad eyesight. Go figure.
It’s you general/ Mr President Grant
Looks like a drunkard or maybe a small pimple on Lee’s ass.
@@maxwellw9111 Why so offensive feller?
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!)
One would think that if a right as important as secession were constitutional, there would be a constitutional provision specifying how to do it. On the other hand, the U.S. Constitution grants only certain enumerated powers to the federal government, all other powers are retained by the sovereign states, or the people. The constitution does not give to the federal government the power to decide which states may or may not leave the union; nor does it expressly prohibit states from deciding for themselves. Therefore, the power to secede is a "reserved power" of the states.
Don't believe it you can secede wahhhhh you can do wahhhh please do it rid Texas 74 million republicans
READ THE 10 AMENDENT.....
If that's the case abortion should have been left to the states, as there is no specified amendment to it.
@@greatkentuckian9032 That's right. It should have been left to the states.
@@greatkentuckian9032 And that's exactly what's happening now
Great vídeo!! Thank you for having made it.
Heck yeah. Thanks for watching :D
I think the majority ruling was that a State could not unilaterally secede.
“There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
In other words, the other states have to say “Yes, California, Texas, Florida, etc, you can leave if you want.”
But that’s false, the 10th amendment protects states right to leave
I've always supposed that in order for a state to leave the Union, they have to have the consent of Congress.
I graduated 15yrs ago and these videos are bringing me right back to 4th period, U.S. History, 11th grade (or grade 11 for all you Canadians).
Well that's what I teach so... :)
@@iammrbeat it was one of my favorite classes next to government-econ
Any part of any country can secede from that country. It's happened for centuries, and we seceded (declared independence) from England. Unfortunately, it usually involves a lot of bloodshed.
We were never a formal part of England, only colonies. It would be like Guam seceeding. Whereas Texas seceeding would be like Scotland seceeding.
Paragraph 6 of the ruling: “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
@@CrisisMonday Scotland has every right to secede from Britain, and Scotts have often advocated for such an event to transpire. Texas, too, should be allowed to secede. What made secession during the civil war wrong is that it was taking place merely in defense of slavery. That's why Lincoln was right to suppress the Confederacy. If the Confederacy genuinely condemned and banned slavery, though, and merely seceded for reasons of self-determination and self-government, then there would be nothing wrong with the decision.
@@thefreelich4875
Every individual is supposed to have equal representation in the union. Also, Scotland was mostly/kinda strongarmed into the union. Texas joined voluntarily and should have to bear the consequences of their actions.
@@CrisisMonday Texas joined the Union in 1845, 178 years ago. No one alive for the time of Sam Houston, John Tyler, and James K. Polk is alive today. Texans today didn't sign any contract in utero guaranteeing their status as a resident of the Lone Star State. But even if Texas joined the Union in 2005 rather than 1845, the state should still be allowed to secede, provided it's secession is for a reason that isn't inherently authoritarian, such as the preservation of slavery, inhibition of labor unions, or the destruction of queer rights (all goals I could see the Republicans seceding in the pursuit of). If someone voluntarily enters a friendship, romantic relationship, job, or any other type of interaction, they aren't bound to it forever.
Awesome video Mr. Beat
Thanks :D
You deserve way more subs
G. W. Paschal did not hold any public office, but he had notified the Treasury about the bond sale. Treasury then declared any bond without pre-rebellion Governor's (Sam Houston) signature void. Governor at the time (Lubbock) supported the bond sale, but state legislature had revoked the requirement for Governor's signature to appear on bonds, as a measure to hide bonds' origin. Thus, Lubbock did not sign the bonds. This is not of much importance, as Treasury had already declared that it would accept no one but Houston's signature.
The case that said the union did not owe southern slave owners for their slaves
International compared law exam passed. Thanks from Italy :)
That's awesome. Glad it helped!
All 18 Joint States in Lawsuit Succeed Together to form a new republic country of Texas
@@beedee9534 o you think your so smart on your little boy keyboard go have your mommy make you a sandwich
@@satans120 Dont care its done Joe Biden is President Jan 7th at 4 AM so long looooosers
@@beedee9534 ALL OF AMERICA LOSES.....
@@beamills9205 OK TRUMP JR go home to daddy you lost
President During this time: Andrew Johnson/Ulysses S. Grant
Chief Justice: Salmon P. Chase
Argued February 5, 1869
Decided April 12, 1869
Case Duration: 66 Days
Decision: 5-3 in favor of Texas (Chase, Nelson, Clifford, Davis, Field. Grier, Swayne, Miller for White.)
So should the amusement park be called "Five Flags over Texas"/
Who gives a shit about five flag you dumbass
@@beedee9534 o but stealing a e l e c t i o n is not treason you dip shit
@@satans120 Dont care its done Joe Biden is President Jan 7th at 4 AM so long looooosers
NOTHING WOULD CHANGE....it's the flags that have flown over Texas.....
My conclusion is that states can not secede as a secession is a declaration that federal law no longer applies over a state by the state, which is plainly unconstitutional. However, the clause giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over lawsuits by states seems to be intended to apply to entities that are states on a de facto basis, not what they legally are supposed to be
Still revelent as always
SNOW IN HOUSTON TODAY SO HAPPY!
I heard about that. Craziness. We got snow on Halloween up here but haven't had any ever since.
this didn't age well
Texas vs White was not about secession. Secession was incidental to the case. Nobody has challenged the assumptions about secession in the ruling.
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.
Well thanks for watching! :D Yeah, I do think if Texas, California, or any other state did vote to secede it would end up regretting it.
Do the United States regret seceding from the British Empire?
There is so much division and strife in a country as large and diverse as the U.S.A. You might be surprised how much more could be achieved if the ultimate political power was brought closer to the citizen by removing the federal layer of bureaucracy. Independent States would be free to pursue their own domestic and foreign policy goals, without the current interference from other members of the Union.
The way it's always worked throughout the world is that if you want to break away from your mother country, and they don't want to let you go, then you have to win a war of independence. The United States succeeded in doing so. The Confederate States did not.
It's also why the Philippines' claim of an 1896 independence date is ridiculous, as they specifically failed to back up their declaration of independence militarily against both Spain and the U.S. and therefore only got independence when it was granted to them in 1946.
I think that if you get enough citizen and military votes and have a case found out of corruption in the federal government then you should be able to leave
Just a thing in case the federal government gets corrupt we need to leave something behind to save ourselves
thx for this video mr beat, i needed this for school
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?
+Jett For President You appear to be correct. By the time Texas sold the bonds, Lubbock was the governor. But it doesn't make sense that Lubbock would not approve as he was pro-Confederacy. I need to find some primary sources and get back to you.
+Jett For President www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/01/on_secssion.html So here is the source that told me incorrectly that Paschal was governor...
Sam Houston apparently was governor when they seceded, in 1861, but in 1862 it was Lubbock, who was loyal to the Confederacy.
3:14 is Salmon Chase sporting a glass eye?
No
great video!!
Who is the dude singing the "Compromise of 1850" song? lol
Hey Mr. Beats, where did you get George Washington Paschal as Governor of Texas? I looked further and nothing says of him being governor.
+Jett For President Oh no! I mixed up my notes! It was Sam Houston who was govenor, not Paschal. Paschal just supported Houston. It looks like I messed this up and I take full responsibility. I am sorry.
That is okay. We make mistakes.
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.
Oh snap.
Mr. Beat The majority of the decisions make sense but this one seems contradictory. As always a great video.
Found the Sovereign Citizen
Thanks John. I do understand your point :D
Watching this during the Texas Border Crisis is an eye opener lol😂😂
Something can't happen until it does.
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).
10TH AMENDMENT
@@beamills9205
What about it?
For all this talk of the EU being too harsh on individual citizens the fact is it has a mechanism in place to leave one that was used quite recently. The US has no legal mechanism of secession.Only vague statements here and there but the Constitution doesn't even imply secession. And no the 10th amendment is not a valid answer since its wording is way too vague. If anything the Constitution actually would imply secession to be illegal at certain points.
Because the EU is a loose organisation and the US is a country.
When they do, ALL FED Money should be withheld from the state.
If states secceding were constitutional then that would mean the constitution in itself has in it the dissolution of the country and thus also the constitution itself. That's how great powers end, dissolved from within over a long period. Once one gets out of the union, others would follow until there's no America left.
This is why you don't mess with Texas
And why you don't mess with Luke especially
Great youll get TRUMP 2021 THE NEW NAME WILL BE TEXIT will board it up ship 74 million republicans and you can fight it out in TEXIT
And Ohio
Who cares about Texas? Only steers and …. What Sergeant Hartman said in Full Metal Jacket!
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
+AimtiTV You kind of already answered your own question. They could punish Texas because they still had sovereignty over Texas.
TREASON? like in an armed revolt against the legitimate federal government including such niceties as killing Union soldiers... The state governments of the south and the so called CSA were breaking lots of laws there, even more if the "Indissoluble" hypothesis is accepted... and if you break laws you get punished. For citizens that means jailtime or worse, for rogue states it means military control and suspension of representation. Sounds legit to me.
@@Ugly_German_Truths
If only the continental Congress can declare war, then Congress had no quorum. So lawyer Lincoln, who was forbidden to hold any government position by the titles and nobility clause of the constitution (being a BAR, British Accredited Registry attorney, see Esquire), the unlawful declaring war by an unlawful president was a war crime? The south seceded because of Lincoln.
USC 28 3002 Section15 states that the United States is a federal corporation and not a government, including the judiciary procedural section (Supreme Court too, what side are they on)
USA Inc is bankrupt for-profit, British Territorial governmental services corporation owned by the crown conglomerate. In DC which is a foreign city-state owned by the crown. State of ILLINOIS is a franchise of., thanks to Lincoln. All State of's are franchises of the crown conglomerate.
Define treason. United States citizens are royal subjects/feudal slaves.
American state nationals such as Illinois, nation-states Ohio, Florida, are geographically defined nation-states. Like England, formerly of the European Union.
According to the Supreme Court the Declaration of independence has no legal basis either.
By darwin
All rights reserved
@@darwinmcguilicuddy6083 nobility clause is non existing it was never pass by the states . The amendmetnt is stil pending
@@niccolorichter1488
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-8
As a Texan I want to secede.
@★ Froggie Animation ★ not so fast. It will be the blue States losing this time.
Hey Mr. Beat I know this is an old vid and you won’t care but why are you saying the George Washington Paschal was governor of Texas? A simple search tells me he was a judge for the state but never governed.
Telling people that they can't leave even if they want to is basically non-consensual governance, which in my opinion goes against the spirit of the union.
Thank you S2
_Chiles_ is not a Spanish name. It's usually pronounced like _miles._
Romer v. Evans next!
How ironic
Personally, I don't think it's clear whether states have a right to secede. But I think it is in a country's interest to have strong bonds between its sub-parts. We have shared institutions, and would it leave us vulnerable if our national army was suddenly fractured by divided loyalties? I think the U.S. should have an amendment to the Constitution to lay out the procedures for secession, and it should include a high bar (2/3 majority in a state referendum?) and a cool-off period of, say, 30 years. During that 30 years, we can work to disentangle our shared institutions, and people can move across state lines to decide where they want to end up. And if secession was just a momentary fad, there would be plenty of opportunity for the state to pass a new law repealing their intent to secede. Having fundamental belief differences is not a good enough reason to secede; there isn't enough land on the planet to divide people up by sets of beliefs.
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.
the 10 th AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION.....do you know what is says?
First lets define Rights - the legal definition is open to interpretation but basically " are , social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement"
That said, Texas and any other state has a Right to leave the union. Clearly the confederate states agreed that under their previous state constitutions they had the right which is why they forced those states to re wright their constitutions after they won the civil war. The question arises then did the confederate states have the authority to force those states to rewright their constitutions or just the ability. There is no law or constitutional precedent that even suggest that the federal government has the legal authority to force a state to rewrite its constitution. Therefore the act of doing that is at best incredibly questionable legally speaking. Furthermore there is the questions of the legality of any document signed under duress. If I had a fight with my family member, my wife perhaps, beat the crap out of her, then forced her at gun point to sign a document stating she would never divorce me. I think it would be pretty hard to get any court to hold that document as legally binding. Worse I would probably face criminal charges for forcing her to sign it at gun point... something to do with assault. The point is that the confederates actions in this regard were at best parallel to an abusive relationship of the worst kind. "do what I say or I will kill you" "don't ever leave me or I will kill you".ALL THAT SAID... it doesn't matter what is legal. If the vast majority of the members of a state what to leave the union they can and they would be supported by the majority of other Americans. It comes down to the fact that Americans value freedom above almost all else. Furthermore it would take an incredibly drastic set of circumstances to motivate the majority of the population of any state to want to leave the union. After such developments which would likely draw on for years everyone would have an opinion. 30 % would say, dont let them leave, 30% would say, get lost we dont need you, and 40% would be undecided but lean in favor of freedom of choice. In the end with only 30% of the population willing to go to war to keep them, they would leave and legal wording wouldn't matter to the realities of the world at that point.
A civil war within a civil war
I think it's time for another one 🤣
I don't think states can secede. This ideal of union was written with the blood of a million americans by 1865
I loved the video.
If I ever want a reminder that human stupidity cannot be differenciated form satyre and parody,I look at court trials and arguments.
I'm sure the british thought the colonies didn't have a right to secede. Turns out might makes right.
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.
Let anyone who currently resides in Texas, but who wants to leave the union, simply move to another country.
I was born and raised in Texas. I was born and raised an America. I have not wish to have my state leave the Union. Rather than taking our state out of the Union, it would be easier for those who no longer wish to be Americans to simply leave the country. Love it or leave it!
ok then, America should be given back to Britain, and all of you who don't like it can move to another country. after all if Americans back in 1776 didn't like the UK they should have just immigrated to France (or some other country).
i am sorry but a country founded on secession shouldn't act as if nations should forever keep their borders and dissenters should just move to another country.
@@harutohashimoto7683 it can be reversed, but i don't think its likely. lets hold our horses and see what happens first.
If your country, your true fatherland, is the United States, then after a Texan secession you would still have 49 States to move to if you're so unhappy.
Those who wish to see Texas become once again an independent country have only one nation to live in: Texas.
Independence movements are not "against" countries. They are "for" the emancipation of their true fatherland. The idea is not just to "not live in the U.S. anymore" (which could be achieved by moving abroad), but to "live in an independent Texas" (which can be achieved nowhere else).
In the end, if you are not happy with the independence of Texas, YOU may leave. Historically, this is what many loyalists did after the U.S. became independent: they moved to the nearest part of the British Empire, the Province of Quebec, which the Crown split in two to give them the Southern part, called Upper-Canada, which today is the Province of Ontario. So their descendants are still subjects of Her Majesty the Queen today. How nice.
Except is a majority of a population wants self determination why should’nt they? And yeah US ain’t America anymore . Over half of Americans don’t care about the first second or tenth amendments . Why should it matter ?
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.
So, you're wrong on all of that. None of judges or politicians in either the UK or Spain would ever think Scottish or Catalonian succession would be legal. The reality is that most politicians understand these countries as "indivisible and permanent creations that can impose itself of certain people who won't want to be governed by it." The only people who don't see is that way, are people, because people are f+cking stupid and don't understand how countries work or how politics work or how the law works.
The constitution doesn't prohibit secession.
@@beedee9534 ?
It doesn't also say I can't run around naked in town.
Read it again. Darn, this is 5th grade stuff!
My great great great etc... grandfather was George w white 🙃 way to go George
Can Puerto Rico dc and virgins island succeed thought?
Texit will make Porta Rico the 50 state
How many of you are here in/after June 20 2022?
I think the supreme court ruled correctly
Now we need 74 million to move to TEXIT there not Americans anymore they can play Patriot in TEXIT with 106 Republican Senators
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.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
I can't find any clause in the Constitution that says so, would you mind to provide some references?
@@bloodraven1297 he doesn't have any because nothing in the constitution says that
Sounds like lots of contradictions about what Texas was and wasn't and when. Personally I might say something about about taxation without representation but then that might bring up other memories 🤔
Texas vs White in four words.....Once in Never out
Then We'll declare independent of Washington DC.
Let’s dissolve the State of Texas, divide it between New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana while elevating Puerto Rico to state status, problem solved! Texas does many things well, except govern themselves and keep their electrical grid running.
I disagree with the supreme court case decision Texas clearly succeeded from the union and while the United States does not want to knowledge stated being able to leave the union in the case of the Civil War none of the states from the south should reef the benefits of money for stuff they did when they were not in the United States which they clearly weren’t during the Civil War time they weren’t that even in the 1964 election so why should they reap the benefits of money from bonds?
Can Texas leave the union the answer is no "The Civil War played a very big role in establishing the power of the federal government and cementing that the federal government has the final say in these issues."
Many historians believe that when the Confederacy surrendered at Appomattox in 1865, the idea of secession was also defeated, McDaniel said. The Union's victory set a precedent that states could not legally secede. Therefore if the South would have won the civil war the Southern States including Texas would have succeeded from the Union and become their own Nation but because they lost the war they lost that ability to succeed therefore remain part of the Union.
The U.S. Constitution contains procedures for admitting new states into the nation, but none for a state to leave.
Yet the myth that Texas can easily secede persists, in part, because of the state's history of independence.
Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836 and spent the next nine years as its own nation. While the young country's leaders first expressed interest in becoming a state in 1836, the Republic of Texas did not join the United States until 1845, when Congress approved the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States.
This resolution, which stipulated that Texas could, in the future, choose to divide itself into "New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition the State of Texas" is often a cause of confusion about the state's ability to secede. But the language of the resolution is clear: Texas can split itself into five new states. It says nothing about splitting apart from the United States.
@@PokeMaster03 But that DID leave. We can’t ignore the facts. And they should not read the benefits of that.
this is about to be relevant again probably c:
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.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
Site which article or amendment says that becomes no state in the us is a sovereign nation the federal power supersedes state power.
The confederacy was sus
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.
That's actually bullshit, you can totally break into five smaller states within the Union if you REALLY want to, though.
all states have the same rights. once Texas became a state, it is obligated to the same rules as every other state. No right to unilaterally secede.
@@fuzzydunlop7928cry about it fascist . All states have self determination crybaby
Since the Constitution does not give to the federal government the power to prevent secession the right of secession remains with the states. See; 9th and 10th Amendments. Secession is in accord with the republican nature of government which gives the people the right to change their government when they see fit. When states created and ratified the Constitution they did not surrender their sovereign powers to a foreign government, the government in DC. They "delegated" those powers to a central government. Since those powers are delegated they can be taken back by the people if they so desire. This is how the people control their government. To forbid secession is to ruin consent of the governed.
I'm just worried about those bonds... we need someone in the Texas AG willing to sue Ken Paxton (White) for those bonds back... will Abbott appoint one of us to do it? or one of them, who won't?
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!
You're the first one to mention this, Mummy. I definitely understand that perspective. A lot of times judges/justices just have take things literally as they are. Thanks for watching as always!
It's a simplistic perspective. Bad and good in this sense is really just a matter of perspective.
That's a terrible argument, and a dangerous one.
the states formed the union of states, it logically follows that states can withdraw from the union.
No they cannot
On first glance. I don't think they should be able to, though.
@@CrisisMonday and you'd be wrong...
@@lakeguy65616 Why?
@@CrisisMonday I apologize for my snarky reply. There exists a balance of power between the states and the Federal government referred to as Federalism. By denying states the ability to succeed from the union, too much power is concentrated in the central government. If states have the ability to succeed, the central government must be more willing to share the power of government or risk states succeeding.... And "the states formed the union of states, it logically follows that states can withdraw from the union." is still correct.
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.
We've already done it once? What about it happening 2x?
I would just rather we legalize marijuana for starters.
It's bound to happen.
move to colorado, california...
thanks u helped me with my us gov paper 😏😏😏
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
So basically, "you can leave the family as long as you are the black sheep of the family." :D
Adios, Florida. Fucking shithole.
That's just begging for the secessionist State to do all in its power to disrupt the federal government! Their senators could filibuster or vote down any and all bills unless and until the rest of the country was pissed enough to just let their State leave and see an end to the gridlock.
If you could not divorce your spouse unless she agreed to let you leave, what would you do? You would go out of your way to become an insufferable pain-in-ass until she yelled "ALRIGHT, THEN! JUST LEAVE ALREADY!!!"
This is because the south lost.
cry babies like always
Cool ❤❤❤
Texas V White is not law, nor a binding court opinion. The Courts are bond by jurisdiction, jurisdiction proceeds from law, Law = Jurisdiction, jurisdiction = power. The court in Texas V White did not have the power of jurisdiction as there was nor is a law making secession unlawful or illegal. No one can cite the article within the 1787 Constitution, amendment thereto or law that states that secession was or is unlawful or illegal, hence there was no power of jurisdiction in the Texas V White case. Justice Chase even admitted such in the case when he stated.....
“If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at the time of filing of this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.”
Texas was NOT a member State in the union once it had legally and lawfully seceded which was the case absent a law to the contrary. Proof also that Texas was not a member State in the union at the time the Texas V White case was file, nor when the opinion was rendered in the case proof of this fact lies in the Texas March 30, 1870 re-admisiion of Texas to the union: Texas rejoined the Union on March 30, 1870, when President Grant signed the act to readmit Texas, one cannot be "RE-ADMITTED to something it never left, therefore clearly the "RE-ADMISSION" itself is proof Texas was not a member State in the union from the time Texas legally and lawfully seceded. The reality is that the State of Texas that seceded has never been re-admitted to the union, as constitutions establish government, and government establishes a State, the very definition of a State according to Johnson's Dictionary of the English language is defined as "A mode of government". Since the Texas constitution was forcibly removed, (The very Constitution that was acceptable as a member State) and was the Constitution which formed the State and its government, and replaced by a new Constitution, a new State using the same name as the original State replaced the dejure State of Texas, the Dejure State remains in a state of forced exile.
Getting back to the Courts lack of Jurisdiction, there was no law stating that secession was unlawful or illegal , hence the STate of Texas legally and lawfully seceded which means that the Court in Texas V White, as Salmon Chase admitted, held no jurisdiction......
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio."
In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
There is talk again of secession from Texas and in this case SCOTUS got it wrong. Part of their statehood gave Texas the right to leave because they had been an independent nation when they joined. Now that I think of it....this case works for them. They "never left" therefore the original statehood agreement stands.
Can you cite it as that is a common myth. Texas has the right to split up into different states but they can't leave the union
@@admiralshadowofasunderedst3068 Texas cannot break itself up into different states only Congress has the power to do that they're have been talks about Congress doing exactly just that with California because it's too big.
I think that if this is going to be a free country that people/States should not be forced to stay. There should be a way to leave if the State feels it's needs are not being met for an extended period of time. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." from the Declaration of Independence. I am not saying it should be easy, though.
So much for #calexit.
Why can Texas seced if cuba can
.
cuba was never a state
I said it in 16, 20, and now 24, this court ruling _is a ticking time bomb._
Dame right we can whos going to stop us the left hahahaha that would be fun to see
you guys couldnt fight a blizzard
Texas should have it own currency
This is a really bad presentation of what was going on, it's really confusing and leaves a bunch of questions unanswered.
Chiles rhymes with Miles.
Yes the United States declared independence and seceded from British rule
Can we the U S secede from Texas
No, only Hawaii because they used to be a monarchy and the US. Illegally, overthrow the government monarchy
@@Satin96 No Texas can get the hell out just proclaim it we can vote on it we the people
the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.
And the United States is the federal law and is the supreme law of land so the federal government could have a military occupation in Texas
But I want to say sorry the answer is no only one state has ever successfully succeeded west Virginia Even though the state' secession is illegal. It was only approve because it was on the side of the good guys Virginia was on the side of the bad guys and so was Texas West Virginia was recognized as the legitimate government of Virginia
I like clip 3:33.
The south was right at least legally
★ Froggie Animation ★ according to the constitution the states have the right to leave the Union
@@noahwiggs9380. Please point to that passage in the constitution.
@@yuiop6611 the constitution it written in 2 ways. The federal government can not do anything that is not explicitly stated in article 1 section 8, and state governments can do anything that is not prohibited in article 1 section 10. It does say in art 1 sec 10 that no state can enter into any treaty, alliance and confederation, however it does not prohibit the states from leaving the union where they are not bound by the constitution. Art 1 section 8 says that the congress can make laws for the general welfare but I would argue that keeping the south in the union against their will is specific welfare for the northern states. The phrase “general welfare “ is interpreted today to mean the congress can do whatever it wants, but that’s not what the founders intended. If the congress can do whatever it wants then why would they put into art 1 sec 8 that the federal government can establish post offices and post roads. Someone could have argued that that was not for the general welfare. So clearly the term general welfare does not mean the federal government can do what ever it wants.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So yes, a State can secede from the union.
I think the Southern States were in the right from a legal standpoint to leave. They just did it for morally wrong reasons since their elites derived their wealth from slavery. Which does not mean that their secession ought to be illegal or invalid.