Such is speculation, but I would have to say yes. I take this position with reason based on what he did in the Merryman case almost immediately after his election. In the event that you are unfamiliar with the circumstances of that case, Merryman, a Maryland resident, was arrested following The Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus there. He sought a writ of habeas corpus for his arrest in federal court and the case landed in the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland. Merryman's case landed in the courtroom Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who was "riding the circuit" court as supreme court justices did in those days. According to judicial procedures, Taney issued a summons by federal Marshall to Merryman's imprisoners for a hearing on his habeas corpus request, which was refused on the grounds of The Lincoln's suspension. As a result of repeated refusals to respond to the court, Taney issued a ruling from the U.S. Circuit Court declaring The Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional.
The ruling was delivered to proper authorities and The Lincoln personally. Rather than abide by it or appeal it though, he simply chose to ignore it because he did not like the results. Evidence exists that he even participated in a later-abandoned effort to have Taney arrested after the ruling. In light of this behavior on a high profile federal case immediately following his inauguration, it is not unreasonable to believe that The Lincoln would have done the same in other cases.
Would European powers be more inclined to recognize a confederacy that had obtained legitimacy through the court system?
Possibly, though such is unknowable. As it stood, the European powers heavily based their considerations of recognition on the battle performance of each side in the war. At times when the confederacy was winning, Britain in particular came very close to initiating the processes for formal recognition. At another time, Napoleon III of France offered to mediate the conflict between the two sides, as did the British cabinet under Palmerston. The only formal recognition came from the Vatican though, and as the tide turned in the war against the confederacy, so did the once-likely diplomatic recognitions from abroad.
Certainly, history would have looked more kindly on the confederates if they had first sought redress under the law.
If they had done so in the courts this is a possibility. But one cannot say that they did not attempt to carry out their secession in the legal framework of the existing government. The acts of secession themselves were carried out under this framework and the redress you discuss for the courtrooms WAS sought in the U.S. Congress.
Does the Constitution define the Supreme Court, or does the Supreme Court define the Constitution?
Because it seems to me we enter a very sticky area if we rely on the courts to forever "interpret" the Constitution for us in any regard, whereby we tend to rely more on what they say than what the Constitution says. More than often, I've noticed, people cite the court only when the court backs up their point, and ignore those rulings which contradict it. Therefore we must be careful if we accept the premise that the law is what the Supreme Court says it is, for we effectively remove our claim as rightful participants in our political system.
That being said, I'd love to hear your comment on Lincoln's logic, that if any state be allowed to leave whenever it wishes, there is no limit to the ransom they may hold the federal government as a condition for their staying. Likewise, if no state may be compelled to stay, then neither may a city, township, neighborhood, nor household be compelled, by the same logic the Southern states were using. Here's the exact quote:
Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain... "
Purely from a logical standpoint, it is a recipe for anarchy, if not anarchy itself. At the very least, it is warlordism. Far from contributing to the system of federal checks and balances, the system would undermine and destroy the very thing it claimed to promote, and would guarantee governments everywhere toothless and inept. No such system is sustainable, nor would it be able to protect any type of universal freedom. The only stability any government could claim would be for the power that which it usurped apart from the system that created it. That goes for Lincoln, Davis, Ghandi, and Napoleon alike.
Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the Merryman case. In fact it was Taney's ruling in that case that led me to suspect that the US Supreme court would look favorably at a secession case brought to it by one or more states.
Of course the Merryman case occurred after secession and the rebellion had started, and Lincoln was invoking his executive power as commander and chief, something he may have found harder to pull off in peace time.
Its also interesting to note that it was a US Circuit court rather than the US Supreme court that ruled on the Merryman case. I'm not sure a US curcuit court has any final jurisdiction over the executive branch.
btw what was the charge brought against Merryman?