At some point, Lincolnites would have had to own up that they'd attacked sovereign States in order to possess them as a conquered march, as economic and political colonies. That's about what happened during Reconstruction. So then you have Lincoln failing the test he'd proposed for President Polk's call for articles of war against Mexico in Lincoln's famous "Spot Resolution". In other words, Lincoln couldn't point to a good reason for precipitating hostilities between the federal government and the departing States other than raison d'etat, and he couldn't point to enabling articles of war, either.
The constitutionality of any number of Lincoln-era laws and executive orders would have come to the fore if Texas vs. White had been decided the other way, as well as a number of Reconstruction measures, including the ratification of the 14th Amendment which was controversial at the time and still should be.
Therefore, Chase's and the other Lincoln appointees' real reason for holding as they did was a consequentialist one: "As former warmakers, we can't afford to have these issues come back to us!"
No, they couldn't afford it. Not with such a stratospheric cost in blood having already been paid by others.
Re 14A, further: There was never any question of binding e.g. the BoR to the States before 14A, but since then Northern pols and judges have been very selective about which articles apply: AJ Sonia Sotomayor only a couple of years ago, as an appellate judge in a firearms case, flatly denied that the Second Amendment is bound to the States (in the face of the language of 14A).
Absolutely!
Re 14A, further: There was never any question of binding e.g. the BoR to the States before 14A, but since then Northern pols and judges have been very selective about which articles apply: AJ Sonia Sotomayor only a couple of years ago, as an appellate judge in a firearms case, flatly denied that the Second Amendment is bound to the States (in the face of the language of 14A).
This is true as well but who else has noticed?