Don't play stupid, Non-Seq. If one branch's appointment is contingent upon the approval of another, and that other branch does not approve of the appointment, no appointment can legally occur. It's a constitutional paradox that, like it or not, happens to exist.
Davis and the confederate congress conspired to eliminate an entire branch of government.
I'll admittedly have to search the records of debates on that, but it is my understanding that significant animosity occurred between the congress and Davis, with those who opposed the court's appointment in the Senate being among the most vocal opponents of Davis's administration. I don't think anyone could ever reasonably call that "conspiring." Do you?
Don't be naieve, GOP. However you try to whitewash it, there was a deliberate violation of the constitution. And Jefferson Davis, as head of the regime, bears the responsibility. Even if he was aided and abetted by the confederate congress. I do not understand how you can rail against President Lincoln for what you see as Constitutional violations and then take such a blasé attitude at a conspiracy to delete an entire branch of government. Why didn't he just dump the congress while he was at it and keep just the Senate?
I don't think anyone could ever reasonably call that "conspiring." Do you?
Given the contempt that Jefferson Davis expressed towards the whole idea of somebody other than him determining what was constitutional and what was not, then the idea of him using the congress to prevent the establishment of a Supreme Court, and the congress playing along, is not an unlikely. Who was it who said the ends justifies the means? Wasn't that Karl Marx? Looks like he backed the wrong horse in the Civil War.