I have as have attorney friends. The case was brought over a dispute over payment of bonds issued by the Seceded State of Texas ... not the secession and subsequent war. 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?
Chief Justice Chase encapsulated and forever enshrined the Radical Republicans' view of federalism. [The Radical Republicans were a wing of the Republican Party organized around an uncompromising opposition to slavery before and during the Civil War and a vigorous campaign to secure rights for freed slaves during Reconstruction. When secession came in the winter of 1860–1861, the Radicals refused to pursue a compromise that might head off violent conflict.] His decision was made before the case came to the court. Prior to this courts construction of federalism and state's rights was one of balance, so each sovereign could operate effectively. A Republic form of government is a system of highly decentralized federalism in which the national government would exercise exclusive or leading authority in only a relatively few areas of policy. What you are implying and backing is that the Constitution and federal sovereignty trumps State sovereignty. Period, end of story. This is in itself a Radical view and surly continues in the Chase mode. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite." ~ James Madison, James Madison, Federalist No. 45 I do not believe Madison & The Federalist Papers ascribes to Chases' viewpoint at all. The "...are few and defined." are what is actually written in the Constitution. The court should read that and the debate and intent of the makers (which is what they are supposed to do). The Court, as they are want to do, and Chief Justice Chase created an entirely new bolt of cloth with the Texas v. White decision. States are soverign also and must persue their rights!