However, the defendants case centered around the claim that since Texas had seceded and not completed reconstruction then she was not a state in the Union and lacked the ability to take her case to the Supreme Court. So the legality of the Texas acts of secession were a central question for the court to decide.
The decision endorsed a union that once created can not be dissolved and secession was not legal.
No it did not. Chief Justice Chase identified the two ways a state could leave the Union - rebellion or through the consent of the other states.
If secession was upheld then the North through the Supreme Court would have to acknowledge a legal government existed. It didn't want that cause if it allowed it the carpetbagging governments set-up by the North would be illegal. DUH!!!! Judge Chase said Texas never left the Union and therefore settled all in favor of the North, not on Constitutional
You can attribute any sinister plot to the Texas v. White decision that your imagination can come up with. That doesn't change the fact that Texas v. White did rule that unilateral secession as practiced by the rebelling states was illegal. That isn't going to change unless the Constitution is amended of a future court overturns that decision.
Your elected officials in Washington DC believe they are above you, beneficent despots ... you must like it that way.
Why must I like it that way? Because I don't sign on with your asinine theories on secession?