574:
512:
marriage and the domestic relations, governing the course of descents, regulating the conveyance and transfer of property, real and personal, and providing remedies for injuries to person and estate, and other similar acts, which would be valid if emanating from a lawful government must be regarded in general as valid when proceeding from an actual, though unlawful, government, and that acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void.
31:
526:
565:" from Pennsylvania, was opposed to Radical Reconstruction and was primarily concerned with the bondholders. He felt that the Treasury lost any control over the bonds immediately after they were issued. Miller and Swayne were more sympathetic than Chase to the radical position. In a separate dissent they agreed with the majority that the bonds had been sold illegally by the secessionist government, but agreed with Grier that the current state of Texas was not a state within the meaning of the Constitution.
492:
operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
1362:
472:
definite form and character and sanction from the
Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
1047:
1372:
377:
attempting to obstruct congressional reconstruction. Increasingly, Republicans were abandoning
Lincoln's position that the states had never left the Union, preferring to treat the South as conquered provinces totally subject to Congressional rule. They hoped that the Supreme Court would reject jurisdiction in the case by claiming that there was no legally recognized government in Texas.
361:
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". The case, filed on February 15, 1867, appeared on the docket as
463:
602:". In a direct attack on Chase's position the bill stipulated that "it rests with Congress to decide what Government is the established one in a State, and that it is hereby, in accordance with former legislation, declared that no civil State Government exists in Virginia, Mississippi, or Texas." The legislation was defeated by the more conservative members of Congress.
482:
more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.
308:. While many of the bonds were sold, there were still some unsold in 1861. Needing money, the legislature authorized the sale of the remaining bonds. Existing state law required that the Texas governor sign his endorsement on any bonds that were sold, but the state feared that the sale price would be depressed if the
511:
It is not necessary to attempt any exact definitions within which the acts of such a State government must be treated as valid or invalid. It may be said, perhaps with sufficient accuracy, that acts necessary to peace and good order among citizens, such for example, as acts sanctioning and protecting
501:
The authority for the performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war; for the performance of the second, authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter,
496:
However, the state's suspension of the prewar government did require the United States to put down the rebellion and reestablish the proper relationship between Texas and the federal government. These obligations were created by the
Constitution in its grant of the power to suppress insurrections and
418:
The attorneys for Chiles first raised the issue of jurisdiction. They claimed that the section of the
Constitution granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction did not apply. Texas's current situation was not that of a state as contemplated by the Founders, but was that of a territory secured by
481:
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something
422:
Chiles's attorneys also argued that the sale of the bonds itself, even if conducted by a revolutionary government, was not in violation of the
Constitution. Their sale was for the benefit of the people of the state, and the people, simply because they now had a different government, could not decide
409:
Texas argued that it was a well established legal principle that if the original transfer to White and Chiles was invalid, then the subsequent transfers were also invalid. Chiles and White might be liable to such purchasers and any purchasers who had successfully redeemed the bonds were liable for a
516:
Chase ruled that the state's relationship with White and Chiles "was therefore treasonable and void". Consequently, he ordered that the current state of Texas retained ownership of the bonds and was entitled either to the return of the bonds or to the payment of a cash equivalent from those who had
430:
White's attorney, P. 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,
426:
James
Mandeville Carlisle, the attorney for Hardenburg, argued that, since his client had purchased his bonds on the open market in New York, he had no way of knowing about any possible questions concerning the validity of his title. Carlisle further stated that the precedents recognizing that the
609:
state "'There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States' was not surprising. Given that the United States was born from revolution, Chase's words echo what had been stated by many legal scholars and politicians of the day, including
506:
Having settled the jurisdiction issue, Chase moved on to the question of who owned title to the bonds. In previous circuit court cases, Chase had recognized the validity of legislative decisions intended solely to maintain peace and order within
Southern society. He had recognized the validity of
471:
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the
Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received
406:
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.S. Constitution".
367:
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 the state of Texas.
333:
owned by George W. White and John Chiles. Although this sale probably occurred earlier, the written confirmation of the transaction was not executed until January 12, 1865. The bonds were in the meantime resold to several individuals, one or more of whom were able to successfully redeem the bonds
545:
tribe than to a state. He also believed that the issue of Texas statehood was a matter for congressional rather than judicial determination, and he was "not disposed to join in any essay to prove Texas to be a State of the Union when Congress had decided that she is not". Justice Grier said that
405:
The complaint filed by Texas claimed ownership of the bonds and requested that the defendants turn the bonds over to the state. Texas's attorneys disputed the legitimacy of the Confederate state legislature that had allowed the bonds to be sold. In response to an issue raised by the defendants,
476:
After establishing the origin of the nation, Chase next addressed Texas's relationship to that Union. He rejected the notion that Texas had merely created a compact with the other states; rather, he said, it had in fact incorporated itself into an existing indissoluble political body. From the
376:
By the time the suit was filed, the radical faction of Republicans in Congress opposed President Johnson's policy in Reconstruction. Radicals opposed the creation of provisional state governments, and moderates were frustrated by a number of lawsuits instigated by provisional Southern governors
491:
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without
486:
For these reasons, Texas had never been outside the Union and any state actions taken to declare secession or implement the Ordinance of Secession were null and void. The rights of the state itself, as well as the rights of Texans as citizens of the United States, remained unimpaired. From the
360:
As the United States Treasury Department became aware of the situation regarding the bonds, it refused to redeem those bonds sold by White and Chiles. 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
101:
Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede. US Treasury bond sales by Confederate Texas during the war, originally owned by pre-war Texas, were invalid, and the bonds were therefore still owned by the post-war
585:
The Court's decision, written by Chase, was criticized by both sides. Radical Republicans saw this as evidence that Chase was abandoning a cause he had once enthusiastically supported. Conservatives condemned Chase for a decision that would allow congressional reconstruction to continue.
662:
Murray p. 149. Murray writes, "It was one of the more important cases of the Reconstruction period, and it has a continuing long-term effect as a result of its definition of both the legal status of a state and the legal aspects of how all states are related to each other within the
452:, first addressed a procedural issue raised in the original filings claiming that the state lacked the authority to prosecute the case. Chase ruled that the approval by any one of the three governors of the original bill submitted to the court was sufficient to authorize the action.
423:
to invalidate the predecessor government's actions. 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.
597:
decision. Trumbull's bill stated that "under the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on
507:"marriage licenses, market transactions, and other day-to-day acts legally sanctioned by the Confederate state governments." However, he clearly treated actions in furtherance of the war effort in a different light. From the decision:
380:
Democrats, on the other hand, wanted the Court to acknowledge the existence of an official state 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
301:. On January 11, 1862, 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.
363:
The State of Texas, Compt., v. George W. White, John Chiles, John A. Hardenburg, Samuel Wolf, George W. Stewart, the Branch of the Commercial Bank of Kentucky, Weston F. Birch, Byron Murray, Jr., and Shaw.
541:(1805) in which Chief Justice John Marshall had defined a state as an entity entitled to representatives in both Congress and the Electoral College. Thus, Texas's status had become more analogous to an
502:
indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State and for the time excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the former.
455:
Chase wrote that the original Union of the colonies had been made in reaction to very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the
276:
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 "absolutely
1408:
1072:
752:
312:
refused to honor bonds sold by a Confederate state. The legislature therefore repealed the requirement for the governor's endorsement in order to hide the origin of the bonds.
1443:
397:
Twelve attorneys represented Texas and the various defendants in the case. Arguments before the Supreme Court were made over three days on February 5, 8 and 9, 1869.
459:, which established a perpetual union between these states. The Constitution, when implemented, only strengthened and perfected this relationship. Chase wrote:
264:
and despite it being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the
1064:
744:
632:
353:, the military commander of the Military District of the Southwest, dismissed him for being an "impediment to the reconstruction of the State", appointing
72:
427:
decisions of the "revolutionary" government would be binding on any subsequent governments were "universally admitted in the public law of nations".
1375:
1145:
212:
431:
in fact, Texas had acted illegally during the war, then a subsequent government had no right to appeal that illegality to the Supreme Court.
1418:
419:
military conquest. Residents of Texas were subject to military rule and had no representation in Congress and no constitutional rights.
1403:
1008:
1314:
1413:
1365:
537:
wrote a dissent in which he stated that he disagreed "on all points raised and decided" by the majority. Grier relied on the case
309:
1398:
230:
542:
1138:
573:
1319:
157:
1003:
Radan, Peter. "Indestructible Union... of Indestructible States: The Supreme Court of the United States and Secession",
1423:
226:
35:
444:
The court delivered its opinion (with five justices supporting and three dissenting) on April 12, 1869. Chief Justice
1220:
1022:
979:
965:
951:
265:
280:". The purported bond sale during the civil war was thus void and the reconstructed Texas remained the legal owner.
638:
1428:
1154:
1131:
627:
261:
242:
249:. The state filed suit in the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, has
1246:
1225:
1106:
345:, and ordered Texas to create a new state constitution and form a new state government loyal to the Union.
260:
of the United States ever since it first joined the Union in 1845, despite it later purporting to join the
1215:
1168:
304:
Texas had received $ 10 million in United States bonds in settlement of border claims as a part of the
256:
In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas was and remained a
1438:
456:
1261:
1256:
1210:
1088:
972:
Justice of Shattered Dreams: Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court during the Civil War Era.
497:
the responsibility to insure for every state a republican form of government. From the decision:
389:
was also concerned with the case, opposing any actions that threatened bondholders and investors.
1347:
1298:
1433:
1184:
325:
that it would not honor any bonds from Texas unless they were endorsed by the prewar governor (
294:
1051:
874:
349:
was elected governor under this process. Throckmorton was in office for a year before General
1251:
1068:
748:
555:
346:
250:
161:
149:
64:
546:
Texas's claim that she was not a state during the Civil War was the equivalent of making a "
1293:
1200:
79:
8:
1241:
534:
297:. This ordinance was subsequently approved by both the state legislature and a statewide
269:
133:
550:" and asking the court to now overrule all her acts "made during the disease". Justices
1079:
599:
593:, using the Miller–Swayne dissent as his model, introduced legislation to overcome the
561:
The dissenting justices rejected the majority opinion for different reasons. Grier, a "
382:
342:
305:
246:
145:
1097:
756:
1018:
975:
961:
947:
316:
525:
1277:
547:
357:
in his place. Pease was a Republican who had lost to Throckmorton in the election.
321:
1123:
1205:
929:
611:
449:
354:
350:
137:
117:
67:
615:
590:
338:
238:
1392:
125:
786:
Murray pp. 151–152. Sections in quotes are Murray's rather than the state's.
293:
On February 1, 1861, the Texas secession convention drafted and approved an
445:
578:
551:
386:
326:
1032:
1335:
1015:
HarperCollins college outline series: Constitution of the United States
298:
277:
257:
87:
410:
personal judgment in favor of the state for the amount they received.
562:
330:
273:
1115:
1046:
643:
83:
30:
234:
225:, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the
462:
448:, a former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under President
241:
owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the
1409:
United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction cases
329:). Despite the warning, 136 bonds were purchased by a
319:
notified the Treasury which ran a legal notice in the
931:
Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession
607:
Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession
1444:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Chase Court
1013:
Spaeth, Harold J. and Smith, Edward Conrad. (1991).
633:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 74
1153:
1000:Texas v. White (University Press of Kansas, 1997)
1390:
1027:Pierson, William Whatley. "Texas versus White."
840:
838:
836:
834:
806:
804:
794:
792:
736:
734:
732:
730:
728:
726:
856:Ross p. 161. The quote is from Ross, not Chase.
707:
705:
994:The Reconstruction Justice of Salmon P. Chase:
253:on certain cases in which a state is a party.
1139:
831:
801:
789:
723:
702:
400:
288:
229:in 1869. The case involved a claim by the
1146:
1132:
371:
934:, p. 222, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
572:
524:
461:
1075:) 700 (1869) is available from:
1017:. (13th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
852:
850:
605:Aleksandar Pavković and Peter Radan in
1391:
334:through the United States government.
1127:
520:
18:1869 United States Supreme Court case
1371:
847:
315:Before the bonds were sold, a Texas
1419:Aftermath of the American Civil War
439:
337:With the end of the war, President
13:
986:
928:Aleksandar Pavković, Peter Radan,
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1455:
1404:United States Supreme Court cases
1221:Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862)
1039:
1029:Southwestern Historical Quarterly
1370:
1361:
1360:
1045:
1035:, focus on the role of the bonds
639:Reference Re Secession of Quebec
341:appointed a temporary governor,
29:
1414:Texas in the American Civil War
1155:Texas in the American Civil War
922:
913:
904:
895:
886:
868:
859:
822:
813:
780:
771:
1399:1869 in United States case law
762:
714:
693:
684:
675:
666:
656:
646:regarding unilateral secession
628:Secession in the United States
589:In December, Illinois Senator
529:Associate Justice Robert Grier
1:
1031:(1915) 18#4 pp. 341–67.
958:Salmon P. Chase: A Biography.
944:Legal Cases of the Civil War.
650:
466:Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase
413:
283:
262:Confederate States of America
1247:Second Battle of Sabine Pass
1226:Great Hanging at Gainesville
392:
7:
1216:First Battle of Sabine Pass
1169:History of slavery in Texas
621:
568:
434:
383:Military Reconstruction Act
227:United States Supreme Court
10:
1460:
883:. Retrieved July 16, 2020.
881:Justia. U.S. Supreme Court
1424:Texas secession movements
1356:
1328:
1307:
1286:
1270:
1234:
1193:
1177:
1161:
457:Articles of Confederation
401:State of Texas, Plaintiff
211:
206:
198:
190:
182:
174:
169:
111:
106:
100:
95:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
1262:Battle of Fort Esperanza
1257:Battle of Mustang Island
1211:Battle of Corpus Christi
289:Secession and bond sales
194:Swayne, joined by Miller
1299:Battle of Palmito Ranch
372:Reconstruction politics
245:legislature during the
178:Chase, joined by Nelson
43:Argued February 5, 1869
1429:Legal history of Texas
1185:Ordinance of Secession
992:Hyman, Harold Melvin.
942:Murray, Robert Bruce.
582:
530:
514:
504:
494:
484:
474:
467:
310:United States Treasury
295:Ordinance of Secession
186:Clifford, Davis, Field
54:Texas v. White, et al.
45:Decided April 12, 1869
1252:Battle of Brownsville
576:
528:
509:
499:
489:
479:
469:
465:
347:James W. Throckmorton
251:original jurisdiction
1294:Battle of Dove Creek
1201:Marshall Conferences
642:– a similar case in
517:redeemed the bonds.
1242:Battle of Galveston
1107:Library of Congress
600:political questions
237:that United States
213:U.S. Const. art. IV
90:1056; 1868 WL 11083
1007:. 10 (2006): 187.
672:Murray pp. 155–59.
583:
531:
521:Dissenting opinion
468:
385:unconstitutional.
343:Andrew J. Hamilton
306:Compromise of 1850
247:American Civil War
122:Associate Justices
1386:
1385:
1050:Works related to
970:Ross, Michael A.
892:Murray pp. 157–58
876:Hepburn v. Ellzey
690:Ross pp. 158–159.
539:Hepburn v. Ellzey
243:Confederate state
218:
217:
1451:
1439:Government bonds
1374:
1373:
1364:
1363:
1278:Battle of Laredo
1148:
1141:
1134:
1125:
1124:
1120:
1114:
1111:
1105:
1102:
1096:
1093:
1087:
1084:
1078:
1049:
935:
926:
920:
917:
911:
908:
902:
899:
893:
890:
884:
872:
866:
863:
857:
854:
845:
842:
829:
826:
820:
817:
811:
808:
799:
796:
787:
784:
778:
775:
769:
768:Ross pp. 159–160
766:
760:
738:
721:
718:
712:
709:
700:
697:
691:
688:
682:
679:
673:
670:
664:
660:
558:also dissented.
556:Samuel F. Miller
548:plea of insanity
440:Majority opinion
322:New York Tribune
272:to unilaterally
162:Stephen J. Field
150:Samuel F. Miller
107:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
1459:
1458:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1382:
1352:
1348:Andrew Hamilton
1324:
1303:
1282:
1266:
1230:
1206:Nueces Massacre
1189:
1173:
1157:
1152:
1118:
1112:
1109:
1103:
1100:
1094:
1091:
1085:
1082:
1076:
1042:
989:
987:Further reading
984:
938:
927:
923:
919:Ross pp. 162–63
918:
914:
909:
905:
900:
896:
891:
887:
873:
869:
864:
860:
855:
848:
843:
832:
827:
823:
818:
814:
809:
802:
797:
790:
785:
781:
776:
772:
767:
763:
739:
724:
719:
715:
710:
703:
698:
694:
689:
685:
680:
676:
671:
667:
661:
657:
653:
624:
612:Abraham Lincoln
571:
523:
450:Abraham Lincoln
442:
437:
416:
403:
395:
374:
355:Elisha M. Pease
351:Philip Sheridan
291:
286:
268:did not permit
160:
148:
138:Nathan Clifford
136:
134:Robert C. Grier
118:Salmon P. Chase
91:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1457:
1447:
1446:
1441:
1436:
1431:
1426:
1421:
1416:
1411:
1406:
1401:
1384:
1383:
1381:
1380:
1368:
1357:
1354:
1353:
1351:
1350:
1345:
1342:Texas v. White
1338:
1332:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1323:
1322:
1317:
1311:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1302:
1301:
1296:
1290:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1281:
1280:
1274:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1265:
1264:
1259:
1254:
1249:
1244:
1238:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1229:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1197:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1188:
1187:
1181:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1172:
1171:
1165:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1151:
1150:
1143:
1136:
1128:
1122:
1121:
1089:Google Scholar
1061:Texas v. White
1057:
1053:Texas v. White
1041:
1040:External links
1038:
1037:
1036:
1025:
1011:
1001:
988:
985:
983:
982:
968:
954:
939:
937:
936:
921:
912:
903:
894:
885:
867:
858:
846:
830:
821:
812:
800:
788:
779:
770:
761:
741:Texas v. White
722:
713:
701:
692:
683:
674:
665:
654:
652:
649:
648:
647:
635:
630:
623:
620:
616:Daniel Webster
591:Lyman Trumbull
570:
567:
522:
519:
441:
438:
436:
433:
415:
412:
402:
399:
394:
391:
373:
370:
339:Andrew Johnson
290:
287:
285:
282:
233:government of
231:Reconstruction
222:Texas v. White
216:
215:
209:
208:
204:
203:
200:
196:
195:
192:
191:Concur/dissent
188:
187:
184:
180:
179:
176:
172:
171:
167:
166:
165:
164:
146:Noah H. Swayne
123:
120:
115:
109:
108:
104:
103:
98:
97:
93:
92:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
24:Texas v. White
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1456:
1445:
1442:
1440:
1437:
1435:
1434:1869 in Texas
1432:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1402:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1394:
1379:
1378:
1369:
1367:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1349:
1346:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1337:
1334:
1333:
1331:
1327:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1312:
1310:
1306:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1289:
1285:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1273:
1269:
1263:
1260:
1258:
1255:
1253:
1250:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1237:
1233:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1196:
1192:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1180:
1176:
1170:
1167:
1166:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1149:
1144:
1142:
1137:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1126:
1117:
1108:
1099:
1090:
1081:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1056:at Wikisource
1055:
1054:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1024:
1023:0-06-467105-4
1020:
1016:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1005:Legal History
1002:
999:
996:in re Turner
995:
991:
990:
981:
980:0-8071-2868-6
977:
973:
969:
967:
966:0-19-504653-6
963:
959:
956:Nevin, John.
955:
953:
952:0-8117-0059-3
949:
945:
941:
940:
933:
932:
925:
916:
907:
898:
889:
882:
879:
877:
871:
865:Murray p. 157
862:
853:
851:
844:Murray p. 156
841:
839:
837:
835:
828:Murray p. 155
825:
819:Murray p. 154
816:
810:Murray p. 153
807:
805:
798:Murray p. 152
795:
793:
783:
774:
765:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
737:
735:
733:
731:
729:
727:
720:Murray p. 151
717:
711:Murray p. 150
708:
706:
696:
687:
681:Murray p. 149
678:
669:
659:
655:
645:
641:
640:
636:
634:
631:
629:
626:
625:
619:
617:
613:
608:
603:
601:
596:
592:
587:
580:
575:
566:
564:
559:
557:
553:
549:
544:
540:
536:
527:
518:
513:
508:
503:
498:
493:
488:
483:
478:
473:
464:
460:
458:
453:
451:
447:
432:
428:
424:
420:
411:
407:
398:
390:
388:
384:
378:
369:
365:
364:
358:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
332:
328:
324:
323:
318:
313:
311:
307:
302:
300:
296:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:
214:
210:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:Case opinions
168:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
126:Samuel Nelson
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:Chief Justice
113:
112:
110:
105:
99:
94:
89:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1376:
1341:
1340:
1060:
1052:
1028:
1014:
1004:
997:
993:
971:
957:
943:
930:
924:
915:
910:Niven p. 438
906:
897:
888:
880:
875:
870:
861:
824:
815:
782:
773:
764:
759: (1869).
740:
716:
695:
686:
677:
668:
658:
637:
606:
604:
594:
588:
584:
560:
538:
535:Robert Grier
532:
515:
510:
505:
500:
495:
490:
485:
480:
475:
470:
454:
446:Salmon Chase
443:
429:
425:
421:
417:
408:
404:
396:
379:
375:
366:
362:
359:
336:
320:
314:
303:
292:
266:Constitution
255:
221:
220:
219:
207:Laws applied
153:
141:
129:
71:
53:
15:
1315:Confederate
901:Ross p. 162
777:Ross p. 160
699:Ross p. 159
579:Chase Court
552:Noah Swayne
387:Wall Street
327:Sam Houston
183:Concurrence
158:David Davis
1393:Categories
1336:Juneteenth
1116:OpenJurist
651:References
487:decision:
477:decision:
414:Defendants
299:referendum
284:Background
88:U.S. LEXIS
86:227; 1868
1329:Aftermath
563:doughface
393:Arguments
331:brokerage
60:Citations
1366:Category
1059:Text of
1033:in JSTOR
622:See also
581:in 1868.
569:Reaction
533:Justice
435:Decision
317:Unionist
175:Majority
82:700; 19
1377:Commons
1162:Origins
1080:Cornell
974:(2003)
960:(1995)
946:(2003)
663:Union."
199:Dissent
96:Holding
1119:
1113:
1110:
1104:
1101:
1098:Justia
1095:
1092:
1086:
1083:
1077:
1021:
1009:online
978:
964:
950:
755:)
743:,
644:Canada
543:Indian
274:secede
270:states
156:
154:·
152:
144:
142:·
140:
132:
130:·
128:
102:state.
84:L. Ed.
1320:Union
1308:Units
1073:Wall.
1067:
753:Wall.
747:
595:White
258:state
239:bonds
235:Texas
202:Grier
80:Wall.
1287:1865
1271:1864
1235:1863
1194:1862
1178:1861
1069:U.S.
1019:ISBN
976:ISBN
962:ISBN
948:ISBN
749:U.S.
614:and
577:The
554:and
278:null
73:more
65:U.S.
1071:(7
998:and
757:700
751:(7
618:."
68:700
63:74
1395::
1065:74
1063:,
849:^
833:^
803:^
791:^
745:74
725:^
704:^
78:7
1147:e
1140:t
1133:v
878:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.