Not at all. I'm saying that the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a act of Congress which happened to be used to combat the Southern rebellion. Sorry if that wasn't clear to you.
You should add: and after the war the Union Supreme Court voted to say both the Union war and the Union Supreme Court was right all along.
You could say that. I would say that after the rebellion was over the United States Supreme Court had a chance to rule on the constitutionality of the Southern acts of unilateral secession and determined that they were, in fact, unconstitutional.
You must be so proud.
Your contempt for the judiciary is duly noted, and is in keeping with the attitude of the Davis regime towards the third branch of government as well.
I guess I haven't exactly gone out of my way to ingratiate myself with you.
Your comment brings to mind what retired Judge William J. Palmer (Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County) wrote: “Behind every decision of the Supreme Court, either supporting or repudiating it, still stands the Constitution of the United States, pronouncing what its makers intended it to pronounce, and doing so in the clarity of its own words for each citizen to read for himself.”
You might read the Constitution again, for the first time: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”