[4CJ]

Therefore, the question of the legality of their acts of secession was most certainly a matter before the court at the time and the court's ruling was most certainly binding.

No. EVERY case must involve a decision of jurisdiction before the actual case at the bar can be decided.

You really do not understand the concept of obiter dictum, do you?

You really do not understand the principles involved in a court decision do you?

[Non-Sequitur]

No. EVERY case must involve a decision of jurisdiction before the actual case at the bar can be decided.

Indeed. The defense argued that the Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction because Texas had seceded. So the question of the legality of that action was indeed a question for the court to decide. If the articles of secession had been legal then Texas was out of the Union while part of the confederacy and had never been readmitted. Ergo, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction. But if the acts of secession were illegal then Texas had never ceased being a state and no readmission was needed, Ergo, the court had jurisdiction. The question of secession was ratio decidendi and not obiter dicta.

You really do not understand the principles involved in a court decision do you?

Better than you, apparently. Now, address the unanswered question. Who had seceded in Penhallow?