So the 1895 decision directly superceeded the 1911 decision. I don't think so.
Read again, the Flint (1911) decision is just an amplification of the Pollock (1895) decision in validating that income taxes were constitutional regardless of whether they were used to tax the wage, salary and other labor income of the individual, or the business income of the corporation and trades as was clearly held to be Constitution by Pollock(1895) and the earlier decisions of Springer (1880).
Flint vs Stone which was based in part on the Pollock (1895) decision and the even earlier Springer (1880) case law having roots in all prior decisions upholding excise taxes in principle whether they be corporate or on the individual in his income producing activities:
The only tax that Pollock (1895) threw out for being levied in an unconstitutional manner were taxes on income from real estate, and stocks and bonds in the form of dividends and interest. It left untouched the decisions of Springer as regards taxation of wages, salaries and other compensation for employments, professions etc.
All are cases upholding taxes on labor and business as constitution and valid prior to the ratification of the 16th amendment and have never been overturned by any Supreme Court decision.
All the 16th Amendment ever accomplished was to assure that rents, dividends and interest (i.e. investment) income were treated the same as labor and business income,( i.e. all were treated as excises on business and financial activities.)
In short the only thing that ever got in the way of Congress levying income taxes at the same time they were hitting the American citizen with all kinds of consumption taxes of that era, was the electorates ire should they try to do so.
The only thing that would go away with repeal of the 16th Amendment, is Congress' power to levy taxes on income from real and personal property without apportionment, such as is mentioned in Pollock (1895).
So the 1895 decision directly superceeded the 1911 decision. I don't think so.You've stumbled onto one of AG's tricks. He posts ruling from history that backup his point of view and ignores any since.