5

Texas v. White is generally regarded as the case that established that US states cannot unilaterally secede. The majority opinion stated that the union between Texas and the other States could not be dissolved:

. . . except through revolution or through consent of the States.

How is "revolution" distinguished from secession and civil war? Did Chief Justice Chase ever elaborate on this, or did any other case ever examine this detail of the ruling? Is a "revolution" simply a militarily successful secession?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

According to Dorf in "No Litmus Test: Law Versus Politics in the Twenty-first Century" revolution "is the repudiation of the existing legal regime." He goes on to state that "any change at all could be authorized by a successful revolution – in the sense that after the revolution the legal rules that existed under the prior constitution would have no further independent force."

This essentially means that revolution is the complete dissolution of the then current government. Without a government, there can be no upholding of laws. Revolution is different from secession and civil war in that secession and civil war leave the existing government intact but repudiate that government's control over the seceding parties.

A secession can occur without a revolution (though not in the US, as that case states). Likewise, a revolution can occur without a war. Secession can occur with or without a war. And a revolution can occur with a war and without secession.

Succinctly: civilians revolt, factions war.

Improve this answer
11
  • 1
    I have always wanted to use "war" as a verb.
    – Andrew
    Commented Jul 6, 2015 at 14:31
  • That passage lends weight to the idea that the difference between a revolution and a secession is that a revolution is successful. It even uses that exact word. Your interpretation would reclassify the American Revolution as secession and civil war, de-legitimizing the government of the United States. I doubt that was the Supreme Court's intention.
    – Merry Misanthrope
    Commented Jul 6, 2015 at 15:38
  • 1
    Not really, an unsuccessful revolution would involve no changed laws and thus, no change in the legal status of a state. Nothing I said de-legitimizes the US Gov't. A secession can occur without a revolution (not in the US as that case states, but in the abstract sense). Likewise, a revolution can occur without a war. Secession can occur with a war but without a revolution. And a revolution can occur with a war and without secession.
    – Andrew
    Commented Jul 6, 2015 at 15:47
  • Plus, the American Revolution should probably be called a civil war.
    – Andrew
    Commented Jul 6, 2015 at 15:49
  • A secession which "leave[s] the existing government intact but repudiate[s] that government's control over the seceding parties" would, if successful, have identical effects to Dorf's description of a revolution: any change at all could be authorized by the victors, as the existing legal rules would no longer have force. This is not a useful way to distinguish secession and revolution.
    – Merry Misanthrope
    Commented Jul 6, 2015 at 19:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .