The truth is, if you can stand it, is that Texas vs White was more about Southern states having rights under the Constitution DESPITE the fact that they had seceded. Chief Justice S. P. Chase used a conflict over bonds to mount his own personal vendetta to "illegitimize" the "right" of states to secede. Writing for the 5-3 majority, (interesting that it was split, considering that it was a stacked reconstruction era court) he basically said that the majority believed that states do not have the right to secede because the UNION WAS OLDER THAN THE STATES. Obviously a ridiculous ruling that could have only been made by a pro-federal government court during reconstruction. I think even you have enough sense to admit that the Union could not possibly predate the states. Anyone with a brain has to realize that, were there any will or impetus to challenge such a ridiculous stance, -- then or now - the conclusion would be much different.
The fact is, the issue is open. The post-conflict Supreme Court blocked attempts to try Davis for treason, saying Secession was justified. The decision remains the unchallenged final say.
While it is trendy for the modern day history revisionists like yourself to call the 19th century Confederates seditious and treasonous, a cursory look at prominent Union leaders' statements clearly contradicts that claim. Was it treasonous for a state to secede from the Union? Not so, according to the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. When confronted with whether or not to charge captured Confederate officers with treason, he offered, "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion."
Furthermore, the South did not rip the Constitution apart. It was primarily Southern made and formed. It was Southerners who made sure this country was to be made up of free and independent republics, not a centralized, tyrannical power! The South did not commit a traitorous act, when in 1860 South Carolina seceded from the union. It did what it knew it had a right to do under the law...SC, as you well know, was not the first state to attempt secession. Several New England States held secession conventions over the War of 1812 and nearly left the union then, and would have except the war with England ended before they could agree on their plan for "CONFEDERATION". If New England yankees had a right to secede in 1812, then the Southern States certainly did in 1860/61.
Jeff Davis was not tried for treason because the united States government would have lost the case...in court, the constitutional rights of the Southern States' right of secession would have been upheld. Also, Jeff Davis was not a citizen of the United States...no one was until the 14th amendment was passed after the "War". Davis was a citizen of Mississippi, the federal government had no jurisdiction over him.
The northern states would have been shown to be the tyrants they were and Lincoln the jackass that he was. Have you ever asked the question, "Why didn't they try Davis, Lee, Johnston, et al..." I can assure you, it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. They knew they had no legal leg to stand on.
I could go on with more of your history lesson, but I'm tired of being so right. You know, I think you said that you consider the Civil War a hobby. Man, if I was you, I'd get another hobby, one that you know something about.
Even though your 'gotcha' was not directed at me regarding the Texas vs White case, let me give you a 'gotcha' in return.
To a true Southerner, and many New Jersians and Ohioans of the day, that decision didn't mean any more to us than the Dred Scott decision meant to Northerners. Why?
Because it was rendered AFTER the illegal and fraudulent ratification of the 14th Amendment which it pertains to. Oh, but you knew that already right?
"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."
The opinion is ridiculous only in that you disagree with it. The judgement is biased only because you say it is. Neither thing means a damned thing. The Supreme Court ruling is the final interpretation of the Constitution, not yours or mine, and they ruled secession is unconstitutional. Live with it.
As for not going on you should have felt free to do so. So far you did nothing but spout your opinion without a single reference to back them up. Far from being too right, you weren't right on a single argument. IMHO, of course.