No, I dodged nothing, and pointed clearly to the facts.
The chief judge of the district court where the case was brought, Justice Salmon Chase, wanted the case dismissed on technicalities, another judge wanted Davis convicted, so the case would end up in the Supreme Court, where Chase was the newly appointed Chief Justice.
But had the case been brought in a different court, say, for example, in Boston, there can be no doubt Davis would have been convicted.
President Johnson's pardon of Davis closed the case, and is, imho, what Lincoln would have done.
cowboyway: "Because it would have exposed disHonest Abe as the war criminal that he was and would have upheld the right of secession."
Total complete Lost Causer wet-dream rubbish.
That's because the same Justice Salmon Chase, who wished to dismiss treason charges against Jefferson Davis also lead the majority opinion in Texas v White just four months later (April 1869).
In Texas v White, Chase ruled, in effect, that unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession were not constitutional or legal, and therefore were acts of constitutionally proscribed rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence".
You obviously didn't read the Yale Law link I provided. It's also obvious that you avoid any material of fact that would destroy your carefully constructed fantasy world.
In Texas v White, Chase ruled, in effect, that unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession were not constitutional or legal, and therefore were acts of constitutionally proscribed rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence".
The statements included in Texas v. White dealing with the constitutionality of secession were dicta (A comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent.) and statements included in the opinion of a court, as dictum, are not of sufficient legal stature to allow their use as precedent.
Based on your position on this issue one has to assume that you approve of legislating from the bench, a rather liberal position.
BTW, you do realize that Texas v. White wasn't about secession, don't you? A very partisan Chase took this bond case issue to insert his opinion on a question that was not argued before the Court. Are you telling me and FR that you agree with partisan judges legislating from the bench?
Fact is there's never been a court case where arguments were made on the right of states to withdraw from the union. End of story.