My, aren't we plesant this morning. As for your ridiculous synopsis, the trial would have been fair and the evidence would have been clearly presented. The jury would have been made up of people who were not hard line rebel supporters but who agreed that the southern actions were illegal. If that constitutes a 'kangaroo court' then, of course, you must be right. You are apparently right about everything.
You are saying quite clearly that the jury would be rigged ("made up of people who were not hard line rebel supporters but who agreed that the southern actions were illegal") but deny it as you are saying it ("the trial would have been fair"). And then you say that "the evidence would have been clearly presented," but you and WhiskeyPapa have never shown any law or Constitutional passage that supports your argument. In fact, WP has admitted that he knows of no explicit prohibition against a state's withdrawal.