1) White versus Texas was the Supreme Court nailing shut the barn door just in case any other state or group of states called foul on the Federal Government and decided to follow the South's example. It's purpose was not to carry back as much as it was to carry forward. Because our courts are not political. No not them.
I know you put great stock in this court decision. It is one of the main linchpin of your argument of the illegality of the South's action, but it slippery because it only proves the North won the war and not that the South was wrong. (Well, yeah, now in 1869 we can absolutely declare the illegality of the South because we won the war and we can can get away with it. Pass those laws, close down the escape clauses, do what has to be done to make sure our victory is complete and forever!)
2. Do you honestly think (heaven forbid) that in the aftermath of the Union victory the Supreme Court would have voted any other way. I don't think they would have voted for a "do over." Get back out of the battle field boys, seems the South had the right to revolt. (Which they did anyway whether Lincoln liked it or not)
3. White Versus Texas was nothing more than the Federal Government exerting its power on a prostrate South and over the rest of the states. It's called the spoils of war and it happens all the time. No, I am not impressed because the Supreme Court from time to time likes to bully its citizens.
After careful review, the penalty stands. Loss of down.
And what am I supposed to put my stock into? Claims from people like MamaTexan and you that decisions like Texas v. White are not valid merely because they disagree with them? No bias in that choice, is there? Nothing political at all in your decisions. Thanks, but I'll pass. I'm sorry if you believe that only decisions you agree with are valid but it just doesn't work that way. Nothing anywhere says that you or I have to agree with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Do you honestly think (heaven forbid) that in the aftermath of the Union victory the Supreme Court would have voted any other way. I don't think they would have voted for a "do over." Get back out of the battle field boys, seems the South had the right to revolt. (Which they did anyway whether Lincoln liked it or not)
In all honesty I don't see how the court could have ruled any other way. I find the Southron concept that states can walk out at any time for any reason and in the process repudiating any responsibility for any obligations built up by the country as a whole while they were a part to be absolutely insane. In believing that you are saying that only the seceding states have any Constitutional protections at all. That they can do anything, take anything, repudiate anything they want to, and the remaining states have no recourse. It makes no more sense to me to believe that a state can walk away at will, consequences be damned, than it does to believe that a state can be expelled against its will. Yet Southron supportes believe that one is possible while the other is not, yet they cannot provide any evidence to support that.
It's called the spoils of war and it happens all the time.
It's called a 5 to 3 decision by the United States Supreme Court, and it is valid and it is binding. So like it or not, unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states is not legal. It has never been legal, and will never be legal unless the Constituiton is amended or a future court overturns the Texas v. White decision.